Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 21

Consensus

It seems we have reached a concensus that we are incapable of reaching any new concensus. Since that is the case, we need to make the article true to the pre-existing consensus as stated in the opening line "This article is about the Chinese civilization. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." It's time to start modifying the article to make it about the civilization rather than the state, states or empire. Maps that show the state rather than the civilization need to be changed or removed. We need discussions about what makes a region/people/city a part of the civilization of "China". A first simple step will be to make sure that where ever we use "China" alone in the article, it is talking about the subject of the "China" article - the civilization - and not about something else. Readin (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I started working on it and it wasn't as easy as I thought. For example, when the article is talking about the state ruled by the Qing, rather than China the civilization, what term should be used? "Qing Dynasty" works when describing government actions, as in "the Qing Dynastly ceded Taiwan and Korea to Japan", but what about when "the Qing Dynasty planned for China to become powerful"? What should be substituted for "China" in that place? Looking up Qing Dynasty I find that the official name for the state was "Empire of the Great Qing" which seems a bit too verbose and confusing. "empire of China" might work, though someone will likely mistakenly 'fix' that to "Empire of China". I've used "the empire" a few times. Any other suggestions?Readin (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when was consensus established that this article is about the Chinese civilization? I don't recall this ever happening. Even if this were the case, I really don't see logic behind deleting useful information, information that no party here seeks to delete, merely for the sake of procedure. The dispute is about the lead, not about the scope. --Jiang (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus before recent (last 6 months) discussions was that the article is about the civilization. As we haven't been able to change that, the old consensus stands. If that's what we have to live with then we need to make the best of it.Readin (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Link? The consensus in 2003 (when this article setup was established) wasn't so.--Jiang (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, if this page isn't about the civilization, what is it about?--Jerrch 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the point in Readin's recent edits. There isn't really a distinction between "China" and "the Chinese empire" pre 1912. Both terms remain anachronisms.

There was a (non clear cut) succession of states, but China, Chinese civilization, and Chinese empire and essentially the same thing from a historical perspective. No state or sovereign entity was ever officially called any of these terms until 1912.--Jiang (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is consider some examples, as I've explained earlier. Korea - arguably part of Chinese civilization, or at least an outgrowth of Chinese civilization, but often not part of the Chinese empire. Taiwan - part of Chinese civilization but after 1895 clearly not part of the Chinese empire. Tibet - arguably part of the Chinese empire starting in the 1700s, definitely part of the Chinese empire after 1959, but not part of Chinese civilization. Empire has to do with zones of control, the ability to tax, the ability cause people to fight for you, etc. Civilization is about technology and culture. Civilization and Empire are not the same even though thay often have large overlaps. You can even have one without the other. Consider the early Greek city-states and the Zulus.

I've focused on the difference between China as civilization and China as empire. You directly asked about the difference betweeen "China" and "the Chinese empire". I agree that in common usage, "China" and "the Chinese empire" were one and the same pre-1912, just as "China" and "the People's Republic of China" are one and the same now. But we are unable to reach a consensus to recognize that.

The existing consensus, by long-standing prior state of the article, is that the article "China" is about Chinese Civilization. Using "China" to mean something else is therefor confusing to the reader and it should be used only to refer to Chinese Civilization, in quotes, or as part of a longer name such as "People's Republic of China".

Personally, I think it is a mistake for the "China" article to be about "Chinese civilization" rather than about the People's Republic of China and its predecessors, but I've not succeeded in persuading people to that consensus nor have any other proposals gained consensus. Readin (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is a mistake. Since Wikipedia isn't a democracy, most of the arguments against China=PRC are that they don't like it (because of the ROC), or that another China exists (the ROC), or that other things mean China (expensive dishes). None of those are policy based reasons to deny the obvious. What are the policy based reasons to not see a consensus that the PRC is the current (for the last 40 years) most common usage of "China"? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The "majority" argument does not apply because of the Northern Cyprus article. Were Wikipedia based on majority rule, Northern Cyprus should not even get an article. As for common uasge, see below, From Wikipedia:NAME:

"Use common names of persons and things

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."

"China=PRC" fails pretty much all requirements of this standard. T-1000 (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying about Northern Cyprus has nothing to do with this, and makes absolutely no sense. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Look, I am sure everybody here can see the analogy between Northern Cyprus and the ROC. T-1000 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Civilizations don't have borders, and before Westphalia (in the case of China, before the Opium War), neither did empires. Rather, authority thinned as it moved away from the center. So who is to claim that Korea was part of Chinese civilization but not part of the Chinese empire? At one point, parts were directly under imperial authority. At others, the government was clearly tributary. Sovereignty was once fluid. We cannot create borders where they don't exist. Especially when we dicuss thousands of years in one sentence. I see where you're headed, but I don't think merely changing "China" to "Chinese empire" will clarigy things.

I really don't see anything in the archives where everyone says "Okay, this article is on the civilization." This was not the original intent when the current setup was established in mid-2003.--Jiang (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a certain amount of truth to the statement that empires didn't always have borders. That is, they didn't have the well-surveyed and completely defined borders they later came to have. But they did have borders in some places. More importanly, empires had "zones of control, the ability to tax, the ability cause people to fight for you, etc." Civilization is more about technology and culture. So both empires and civilizations both don't always have neatly defined borders. That doesn't make them the same thing. Readin (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to lead

Onetwo1 has been making some fairly extensive changes to the lead. I have reverted back to the previous stable version for a number of reasons. I would like to have some discussion here before making such major changes.

I have also removed the "citation needed" tags that had been added. The information in the lead is well-established. One doesn't need a citation for the fact that China is an ancient civilization or that there are nations within China, for example. Sunray (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you read the above discussion, you will notice that editors are discussing about what this article should be about. So I think that is where the citation needed tag came from. Some editors believe that it should be cited since there are many translation on what China should mean. —Chris! _ct 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. I would have no objection to putting the tags back, but I hope people will find the citations and add them soon, rather than go on speculating about "what China is." After all, few countries have citation needed tags in the lead. Sunray (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking the above (see "China is a country, being the People's Republic of China") into account, I have added the phrase "a country in East Asia" to the lead instead of the cumbersome and disputed "national or multinational entity." Sunray (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Defining China as a country either implies that Taiwan is not a part of China, or Taiwan is a part of the PRC, both are violations of NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the cross-strait dispute delevels China from being a country to something else. China is certainly a country. Whether ROC or PRC represents China is another issue. All major political parties agree that China is a country. CPC and KMT position re consensus of 1992 - There is one China (hence a country) but the party who can exercise the sovereignty of China is subject to varying definitions; DPP position, Taiwan and China are both countries, hence China is a country.--Pyl (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• It's also undisputed constitutionally that Taiwan is part of China on both sides of the Taiwan Strait ("Taiwan Province", look at the vehicle licence plates in Taiwan http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/01/04/2003343336 ). DPP's position of Taiwan being a separate country is not enacted in law and therefore does not affect that constitutional position.--Pyl (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How so? Surely "country" is a neutral term. I don't think it implies anything about Taiwan. Sunray (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Taiwan is defined as "Province of China" by the UN. If China is defined as "a" country, that implies that Taiwan is a part of the PRC. T-1000 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that confirms that Taiwan is defined as "Province of China" by the UN? Sunray (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see link:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24138&Cr=general&Cr1=debate&Kw1=general+assembly&Kw2=&Kw3=

Also, please do not make changes to the main page until the discussion is over, to avoid the revert war. T-1000 (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I still think that the usage above on China as a country is definitive. Sunray (talk)

Whether on not the UN refers to Taiwan as the "Province of China" is immaterial to whether China is a country. As has been well established on this page, China is widely accepted as a country. The version of the lead that states that China is "national or multinational entity in East Asia" is an extremely weak formulation, IMO. Several editors apparently agree and have reverted your attempts to reinsert it. Since you are a minority of one, please heed your own advice not to edit war. Sunray (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did editors revert my edits? Your insert of "a country" was first reverted by User:Readin on 1:51 of April 27, then Another user reverted vandalism, and reverted Readin's edits in the process. Furthermore, defining China as "a country" is deliberate ambiguity, since you never define the term "country" or define this country to be the PRC or the ROC. If China the country means PRC, then the edit is a violation of NPOV. The old Censuses was that this article is about the Chinese Civilization. If "country" is to be inserted, then what the "country" is needs to be defined. Due to the lack of a new Censuses, the old Censuses stands. T-1000 (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sticking to the issue at hand, as per the discussion I've referred to above, the following sources refer to China as a "country":

• Encyclopaedia Britannica (2002),
• National Geographic Atlas of the World (8th ed),
• Oxford English Dictionary (online): "China: The country so called, in Asia"
• CIA World Factbook 2008

There is not need to define country in the article. It is in all dictionaries: "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory." Sunray (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The territorial definition of Both the PRC and the ROC is flawed. Furthermore, the sources you found all acknowledge that Taiwan is a part of China, which equals to the PRC. That's is not neutral. T-1000 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

Sources do not have to be neutral, just reliable. We have to be neutral. However, I agree with you that since we do refer to both PRC and ROC in this article, we probably do have to stick with the cumbersome wording of "national or multinational entity." Thanks for the discussion. I will not revert again. Sunray (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the population of China?

This article is lacking even basic information about China. Where's the quick reference table thingy that appears for other countries (i.e. with government, population, GDP figures etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.69.126 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Civilizations don't have clearly defined borders like nation-states do. So long as the article is about China the civilization it won't contain statistics or measurements like population, GDP, etc.. Readin (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

CHINA IS A COUNTRY!!! IF NOT, ASK United Nations!!!! --Singaga (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning basic Quick Reference data necessary for Template:Infobox Country, wouldn't such information be accessible online through, for instance, an official Ministry of State server for the People's Republic of China? It is entirely possible that some of the population figures are not currently counted due to the present state of emergency (as of 05:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC) ) declared under the Antisecessionist Act. We know about the ongoing issues involving Tibet Autonomous Region, but other prefectures could be off the statistics books due to some need that the Communist Party of China is keeping unpublished. As I understand things, the Republic of China vital-statistics bureau at Taipei concurs with what figures ARE available from Beijing, so those may be all the numbers currently available to proceed with the basic info herebefore mentioned. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

1,338,612,968 (July 2009 est. from cia.gov) That wasn't so hard, now, was it? Pretty disappointing that I couldn't get this really basic information from wikipedia... UNTIL NOW. haha! Jmjanzen (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Macau and other parts of southern China in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes Macau and other parts of southern China. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost (Red4tribe (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Even a child can tell you China is a country

But unfortunately, some people here don't really know the fact, and deny the fact! why? because some people here are 反华份子，and some people here are afraid of this country so called Central Kingdom from rising!! So please change the first paragraph to "China is a country"!!! --Singaga (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Will a child know what he means when he says "China is a country"? If so, what will the child mean? Suppose I tell you that the Zercux Corporation has hundreds of plants, but I don't bother to tell whether they are house plants or manufacturing plants. Have I provided you useful information? "Country" has many definitions. If the reader can't tell from context which definition is intended, or we don't provide a definition, then what value have we added? If we're going to say "China is a country" we need to agree on what we mean and we need to make sure we say what we mean unambiguously. I agree with you that "China is a country" only if "country" means in this case the People's Republic of China. China is not a country in the sense of a culturally unified region. It is not a country in the sense of a rural area (It has many of the world's largest cities.) Readin (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

儍屄. --Singaga (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

China is a member of United Nations!! --Singaga (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, children know what country means. It may not be a very nuanced definition, but walk into a grade school classroom, pull down the wall-sized world map, and they can show you all the differently colored blobs, and China as a country means the same as any other country. If our knowledge of intranecine politics has so clouded our ability to recognize that then we have failed. If we allow the biased politics of a noisy minority to dictate non-recognition of something so basic, then we have failed. Currently, this article is a failure, as the external reviews show. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

enough 贱𨶙反華屎! --Singaga (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Those maps often show Taiwan as a part of the PRC also. I really hope your not using a Child's standards for Wikipedia. And please stop using the "noisy minority" argument. Must I redirect you to the Northern Cyprus article again? Furthermore, the external reviewed talked nothing about the PRC and ROC issue. Both the Silk Road and Korean independence have to do with the Chinese Civilization. T-1000 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We use sources for individual facts. We do not import them wholesale so it doesn't matter if they include Taiwan as part of the PRC. We do not here at Wikipedia. We describe what sources say about our subjects. We do not prescribe facts. Our sources most commonly describe the PRC as simply China, and the ROC as simply Taiwan (or the obverse, they use China to mean PRC, and Taiwan to mean ROC).

FWIW, for research, I looked at a world map published by Highlights for Children. China and Taiwan were labeled as such, and as separate countries. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The point remains that you are still implying that PRC is the legitimate China by redirecting. The naming conventions and Wikipedia:NPOV clearly states that NPOV is non-negotiable and more important than concern for common usage. Furthermore, Wiki already states in the article that PRC is commonly known as China. T-1000 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you use a source that defines China as PRC, but do not mentions that the same source also defines Taiwan as part of the PRC, that's intentional dishonesty.

You said: "We do not here at Wikipedia." It is because of this reason that we cannot equate "China" with PRC. If China = PRC and Taiwan is not part of the PRC, that endorses the POV that Taiwan is not part of China. T-1000 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not I. Our reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the PRC as simply China. In fact, I cannot think of a single mainstream English language source that uses the shorthand "China" to refer to the ROC. Please read: Wikipedia:Naming conflict. The ROC use of the term China is a subjective criteria that should not be used. The naming conflict guideline addresses your POV concerns, under "geopolitical contexts" even refers to this subject itself. Further, the example under dealing with self-identifying terms makes it clear that considering your claims that the PRC has no right to the term China, is the NPOV problem, because it gives undue weight to the minority position and controversy. We don't deal with whether the PRC should use the term China, simply that it does, and the rest of the world does as well. The competing claim by the ROC is a minority position that is adequately described in every article where it matters and half a dozen independent articles devoted to the issue itself.

The text in the articles deals with the Taiwan question, not the title of the article.

This boils down to one question: What is the most common english language use of the term China? We look for the answer in reliable sources and they all point to one thing: the populous and very large country in east Asia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You said: "We don't deal with whether the PRC should use the term China, simply that it does, and the rest of the world does as well." However, redirecting the "China" to PRC precisely implies that Wikipedia agrees that the PRC should use China, because only things that are equal to each other get redirects. The China article already describes that the PRC is commonly known as China.

From Wikipedia:Naming conflict:

"China" is commonly used as a synonym for the People's Republic of China, even though it does not control the territory (counted as part of China) governed by the rival Republic of China.

As you can see, counting Taiwan as a part of PRC is a violation of NPOV. When NPOV conflicts with common usage, concerns for NPOV is considered before concerns for common usage, as NPOV is stated to be non-negotiable.

Can you find a guideline that states common usage is to be considered before NPOV? T-1000 (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Power of the Veto: The five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) enjoy the privilege of veto power. --Singaga (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that that usage of China refers to the state called the People's Republic of China. The original purpose of this article is to describe China as a civilization, its culture, the history of this civilization, the different states that are connected with this civilization, etc. nat.utoronto 16:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As Jiang notes above, what this article has developed into is NOT what the original purpose was. The current article is a mess with no rhyme or reason whatsoever. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If you have a problem with the NPOV guidelines, talk to Jimbo Wales. Please stop ranting. T-1000 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. You obviously fail to understand it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Mind telling me where in the NPOV guideline does it support your viewpoint? A quote would be nice. T-1000 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

dab

Can't China just be a disambiguation page that points to three articles: People's Republic of China, Republic of China and Chinese civilization? --Joowwww (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No! That would be too easy and make too much sense. Worse, it would represent NPOV and we certainly can't have that. Readin (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHA. Very Funny. But seriously, that would work, however, if this page is moved to "Chinese Civilization", whatever says "China" on this article should still be refer as to "China". The problems would be the pipe links such as [[Chinese Civilization|China]] and it would take forever to find all the links and matched them accordingly to their respected articles. nat.utoronto 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would take that long; we have a lot of interested editors.

Even if it did take that long, it would be worth it.Readin (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A dab page is only useful when there is no clear primary topic. In this case, we have a primary topic that KMT fans wish to deny. Denial is not NPOV, it's undue weight to a minority POV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Please actually take the time to read the undue weight guideline:

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one"

Labeling PRC as the true China, on the basis that it is the most popular view, is actually a violation of undue weight. T-1000 (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it is more complex than just the KMT fans wanting to deny the primary topic. People who want to see China annex Taiwan, regardless of what government they want to see it happen under, may also wish to avoid seeing the "China" article be about the PRC, but instead prefer a "China" article about some larger entity that includes all current PRC territory plus Taiwan. This is one reason I suspect the dab page proposal won't gain traction. If you take the various definitions of "china" (the civilization, the PRC, the culture, etc.) it is hard to find a single definition that includes all of the PRC plus Taiwan. But if you have an ambiguous use of "China", then by applying different definitions at different times you can include all of the PRC plus Taiwan. Readin (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF is this? Why isn't this redirecting to the People's Republic of China? What about the current human rights problem and the tibetans, REVERT IT! :( -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 02:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC?

Would it be worth getting an outside opinion on the naming issue at WP:RFC? Things are only going in circles here, and as has been noted above the issue isn't going to just die down and go away. Modest Genius ^talk 23:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

better not to expect any, bunch of 反華儍屄 are here promoting 牠們的屎，反華份子牠們本身就是一堆屎!!! --Singaga (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must point out that, regardless of which language you do it in, calling anyone who disagrees with you vulgar names for female anatomy or dung heaps is both highly inappropriate and unacceptable, as well as a violation of WP:NPA. If you have something to contribute, please desist using profanity (regardless of what language) and participate in a rational discussion. GolatHi (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, rational discussion, but those 反華贱𨶙一様会嗎？--Singaga (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and in fact they were trying to before you started name calling. I'm certain everyone would appreciate another point of view, but please share it in English (since this is English wikipedia) and cut the name calling.

As you discuss, you should keep in mind that simply because the PRC proclaims that there is only one China, that does not mean it to be true. We are not here to evaluate their policies, rather to discuss Chinese civilization as a whole. 129.101.117.97 (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do 反华份子 对这页 24 hours monitor 着?

Do 反华份子 对这页 24 hours monitor 着? this is really a joke. 赚个小钱，辛苦啊。 --Singaga (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article shows the bias of anti-PRC editors. But this is the English Wikipedia. Please use English to discuss on the talk page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

犯咗你乜例啊？𨶙𨳊！--Singaga (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-PRC? Nobody here is denying that "China = PRC" is the majority view. The majority view is still a point of view. The guidelines clearly state that "the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications", Hence POVs do not belong in article titles. How many more times do I have to post this guideline for you to get it? T-1000 (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the outcome is, or what each contributor's opinion is, I feel the need to point out that another Wikipedia guideline actually encourages discussion and consensus building rather than simply stating/repeating rules and guidelines and expecting all discussion to end there. Most guidelines are there for the entire Wikipedia, in all their broad and vague splendour, and fail to take into account the nuances and complexity of some issues that can't be solved by a simple "that's the rule, so there". --Joowwww (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

With the controversial status of cross strait relations, I doubt the China page will be exempt from the NPOV policies. If anything, they are probably enforced more vigorously. T-1000 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion never ends. Consensus is impossible. Real encyclopedias have real editors with real power to make real decisions. Wikipedia's attempt to produce NPOV via consensus, where every "editor" has an effective veto, actually results in no coherent point of view. --slashem (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• And besides the above comments (which I agree with), I am sure most people in the world would agree that the PRC government doesn't have an exclusive claim to the word "华 (Hua)". Things done here that are not in compliance with the RPC government's policy don't mean they are also against the whole Chinese population throughout the world. Please stop using the term "反华 Anti-Hua", as it is highly offensive.--Pyl (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This page will be moved to "Chinese Civilization"

各位，I will rename the page to "Chinese Civilization"， and the other page People's Republic of China will be renamed to "China", similar to India and Republic of India, later on we can move stuff in "Chinese Civilization" back to China. (This comment will also appear in the People's Republic of China page) --Singaga (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't get your logic here. What relevance does India have here in this matter? Did India have a civil war that resulted in a stalemate of having two political entities within one country? I think that's the situation we are dealing with here.--Plinwu (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What? You've never heard of Pakistan? Pakistan is as much a part of India as Taiwan is a part of China. Well perhaps Pakistan is more a part of India. Pakistan had long been part of India before the civil war, while Taiwan had been part of Japan for most of 50 years prior to the Chinese civil war spilling over into Taiwan.Readin (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

False analogy, Pakistan does not have India in it's official name nor is it trying to claim to be the sole legitimate government of India. T-1000 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All analogies are false because there are always differences. It's a question of how significant you think those differences are. You think that the official position of Taiwan is significant. However it does not reflect the will of the people of the country - it reflects the fact that they get a lot of support from the U.S. and the U.S. wants them to pay lip service to that position. Similarly, the "China" in "Republic of China" is no more significant that the "Democratic" in "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Names quite often have nothing to do with reality. A more significant difference in the analogies is that Pakistan had a long history of being an integral part of India, while Taiwan has been separate from China for 108 of the last 113 years, and before that was generally considered an outside area rather than an integral part.

Leaving aside the analogy, it is common for countries to have a common name and an common name. Ireland and Republic of Ireland, America and United States of America, England and United Kingdom, South Korea and Republic of Korea, North Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Republic of China, China and People's Republic of China. Each example is different in its own way. Some of the common names aren't strictly accurate (England is only a part of the UK). Some of the official names are way inaccurate. That's the world we live in.Readin (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether Taiwan is a part of China or not is irrelevant to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia has no power to decide that anyway. The reason that we have to be neutral is because of the political status of Taiwan is disputed. Pakistan does not have this dispute, so the analogy is false. The Official view is important because it is the only thing coded into law. If we speculate on stuff like "Will of the people", it could open up a slippery slopes which allow all kind of non-neutral stuff into Wikipedia. T-1000 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We have no more power to decide whether Taiwan is part of China than the ROC does, unless of course the ROC wants to submit to China, which it doesn't. The "official" view is just the official View, nothing more. Kim Jung Il is officially a living god as was his father. Officially most of the people killed June 4 1989 at Tiananmen Square were soldiers and the rest were hooligans. Officially Taiwan is part of China. We have to make note of these views, but we don't have to treat them as objective truth simply because they're "official". Readin (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether Taiwan is a part of China or not is irrelevant to Wikipedia CORRECT. But not because Wikipedia has no power to decide that (which is also true, and also irrelevant.) The article, at China, should be the most common usage of the word China. The text of the article sets up definitions. The text about Taiwan/ROC, is always about the dispute. That's what the neutrality policy demands, and all of our articles that discuss it have in depth mention of it. Neutrality does not demand (in fact, it demands otherwise) that a minority position gets to dictate a denial of what the most common usage is. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Nobody is denying common usage, but the common usage itself is not neutral, see below:

"Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."

As long as the status of Taiwan is disputed, China = PRC remains a viewpoint. As I have already shown, the common name guideline disallows POVs in article titles. T-1000 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, T-1000 (talk · contribs) asserts that it is possible to avoid all viewpoints. His assertion that common usage is not neutral begs the question of who defines what is neutral, since obviously people disagree. Finally, "As I have already shown" is symptomatic of his approach: he is here to prove his viewpoint, not to compromise. --slashem (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when has the RoC made a claim to be the sole legitimate government of China? It's been 15-20 years since that position was taken seriously, really? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Please. If people edited based on stuff like "taken seriously", Wikipedia would be fucked up beyond belief. T-1000 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is entirely the point of NPOV. Fringe views get fringe treatment. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Then the entire debate turns into a POV mess of defining "Fringe", Northern Cyprus Anyone? T-1000 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

𨶙𨳊！咁 India 呢？--Singaga (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The constitution of the RoC still says that the RoC is the government of China and claims mainland China as part of its territory (and this position is agreed upon by 20 or so countries in the world). Shouldn't we just stick to the fact here in Wikipedia? If the RoC decides to change the constitution and no longer claims to be China then we can make the appropriate changes.--Pyl (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If we say that the ROC Constitution claims that the ROC is the government of China, that is fact. But saying that the ROC Constitution statement on the issue represents anything more than an obsolete left-over from the 1940s that now only serves to placate a deranged imperial China, that is opinion.

Saying that the ROC, commonly known as "Taiwan" now governs only Taiwan and a few smaller islands, but does not govern more than 1/1000 of the land it once called "China" is fact.

Until established international law principles, the territory governed plays no part here the ROC government still governs Kinmen and Matsu since ROC's establishment in 1911. What you were saying is fact but the current circumstance that ROC doesn't govern all of the land it once called "China" doesn't stop ROC from being "China". Even the PRC government recognises this and wants ROC to remain "China" as per the consensus of 1992.--Pyl (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Taiwan is part of China when we don't have an agreed on definition of "China" is not even opinion, it's nonsense.Readin (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Official consensus across the strait is that Taiwan is part of China. Whether Taiwan is part of the ROC or PRC is subject of varying definitions. Re Consensus of 1992. The unofficial position varies depending on the polls conducted (when and who etc conducted the polls). But I was just saying that India/Pakistan was an inappropriate example to use here and my comment wasn't relating to debates on Taiwan independence.--Pyl (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

对比 Inda IS Rpublic of Inda, China IS People's Republic of China. --Singaga (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean India IS Republic of India and China is Republic of China? I still don't get your logic.--Pyl (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

When people talk about India, they aren't talking about Pakistan. When people talk about China, they aren't talking about Taiwan. That's the point. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Has Pakistan claims to represent the whole of India in its constitution?--Pyl (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Has Pakistan been separate from India for 108 of the past 113 years? Does Al Qaeda claim that Spain is part of their territory? What is the point of your question? Readin (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Macau was governed by a power other than China for more than 108 years before 1999. I don't think anyone right now would realistically claim that Macau, because of that, would no longer be part of China. Taiwan was governed by Japan for 50 out of the 108 years because of the same reason, colonisation. For the rest of the time you mentioned, during KMT years, Taiwan *was* China as KMT government claimed. Therefore Taiwan was only notionally separate from mainland China for some of the 8 years when DPP was in power, as DPP didn't go for Taiwan independence initially. And even that, Taiwan was still legally (and officially) part of China for the whole time as the constitution which claimed so never was amended. In any event, in this section, I wasn't getting into debates on Taiwan independence because this is not the forum. My question was that using Pakistan/India as an example to say that PRC is therefore "China" was inappropriate. I make no comment on the Al Qaeda/Spain question as it is outside the subject of discussion.--Pyl (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

低屄仔，誰在這兒問问題啊？ --Singaga (talk)

各位网友，I will make the changes tomorrow，如有问题，请提出。反華份子就滾屎好了。--Singaga (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

请注意， article and discussion will be moved altogether --Singaga (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, let's see how long you last before you get banned. T-1000 (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we operate by consensus, not by logic or common sense. Singaga, I'm sorry to say it but we're stuck with the current set-up for now. If you try to move the page without consensus you'll be in violation of Wikipedia policies.Readin (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not something to be rushed. Benjwong (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

T-1000 (talk · contribs) will never change his mind. I've noticed the other people against this are from Hong Kong, where apparently the usage is "mainland China". To them I would say think about this from the perspective of your audience, which is mostly in the States. Too many people assume that "what makes sense to me" must be right. --slashem (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have read the policies and guidelines, (i can't remember which one) they state that although Wikipedia's servers and the majority of the readers are from the United States, it does not mean that we follow the views of the United States or their citizens. nat.utoronto 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

By that argument we don't follow the views of people from Hong Kong either. In fact, if you take that policy literally, we don't follow anyone's views, which is not realistic.

Personally I don't believe Wikipedia should try to impose a "correct" usage on its audience, rather it should reflect the usage of its audience. Knowing your audience is the first principle of effective communication. --slashem (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The audience is English speakers. One thing that isn't quite clear though is whether we are to focus on native English speakers, proficient English speakers, or anyone who knows a few words of English. Given how many people know English well as a second language, and how many more people know it poorly as a second language, that could be an important consideration. What happens when an entire country, particularly a large country like China, India, or Japan, adopts an "incorrect" or non-standard usage of English? Should their usage be given equal weight with the usage of an equal number of native English speakers?Readin (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a deep question. Hypotheticals are hard to deal with. The current situation is that American English is the leading international standard and Commonwealth English is the leading alternative. Like Canada, Wikipedia gets a little confused between the two.

On this specific issue, we get a lot of comments from casual readers that our naming convention confuses them, but they don't stay and so regular editors, who have already adjusted to the status quo, make policy. At this time I see only three editors, all from Hong Kong, who argue that there should be a distinction between "China" and "PRC", although in the past there were more (including, surprisingly, Larry Sanger (talk · contribs)). --slashem (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Both American English and the Queen's English most commonly refer to the PRC as "China". The distinction most common in Hong Kong is raised when it is a matter of politics internal to the PRC. Some Hongkongers sometimes forget that Hong Kong is wholly and indisputably part of the PRC, which makes their distinction strictly internal. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Mao Zedong once claimed PRC = New China. If the first president wants nothing to do with original China or "old China", then who are you to dispute? Benjwong (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Languages are defined by consensus, not by individuals. --slashem (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Hu Jin Taoyesterday in a formal speech in Japan just said something to the effect of the Chinese people establishing the new China during 1911 to 1949.--Pyl (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You can say some scholars had the vision of new china as early as 1920s. This is research-able. Benjwong (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. --slashem (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Most people China agree that the PRC government doesn't have an exclusive claim to the word "华 (Hua)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovejing2 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

{{editprotected}} The Etymology section is currently carrying the Peter.zhou vandalism that the protection is there to prevent. And the protection is supposed to be semi-pp not full-pp, which is why I can't fix it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

 Done nat.utoronto 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you also set it to semi-pp? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

POV and NPOV

T-1000 (talk · contribs) thinks POV can be avoided and that NPOV means "no point of view". Of course what he is really saying is that "My POV = NPOV". --slashem (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"no point of view" in article titles is a guideline. I trust you can find that on your own. Where did I express my own views? T-1000 (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"No point of view" is impossible. You don't understand that. Everyone has a point of view. Your opinion that the POV you are advocating is neutral is a POV. --slashem (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, just read this on your own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity T-1000 (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No point of view in article titles is not a guideline. In all cases, it is neutrality, and the NPOV POLICY, and the Naming conflict guideline that the policy summarizes all make it very clear that the existence of the ROC is not a consideration to deny that the most common usage of China is to mean the country we call People's Republic of China.

Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, describing corporate entities such as cities and states by the names by which they describe themselves (or by the English-language equivalent). Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for further guidance.

The followup guideline, Naming conflicts, entirely disagrees with you. The common name (in use by the world), the self-descriptive name (of the PRC), the official short name (ie, the UN) of the PRC is simply, "China". The guideline says that subjective criteria such as someone else's claim to the term China (ie, the ROC), should NOT be used as criteria to determine Wikipedia's usage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

On the contrary, It is indeed a guideline:

"Use common names of persons and things

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."

I trust you can read the words in bold. In this case, the common usage itself implies a POV (PRC is the legitimate China). T-1000 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This link is not about article titles, which cannot "describe" vocabulary disputes. An article title must choose a POV. Not to mention that the choice of what to include in a description of a dispute, such as which participants are major, requires a POV. And also that often major participants cannot agree that the article is presenting all views "sympathetically and comprehensively". If you want to have an informed opinion on this subject I suggest you study the history of some long-running disputes on Wikipedia. Try WP:MEDCAB cases, maybe Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada where participants cannot agree on whether to use the term "uprising" in the article. (Yes, that is the entire dispute.)

As an empirical question, all the attempts so far have failed. --slashem (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

""Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." T-1000 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that policy is perfect and quoting it should solve all problems. You really are not dealing with reality here. --slashem (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

T-1000: The WP:NPOV policy and the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline do not contain the words you are quoting. Those are the operative rules of Wikipedia in this dispute. You are ignoring the rules that apply to this dispute. You are selectively quoting from other rules to try and make a point. It isn't working. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It is from Wikipedia:NAME, under 1.6. I trust you will have no trouble finding it now. T-1000 (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"China" is not a descriptive name. It is a proper noun. This, Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, is a descriptive name, and not a proper noun. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Again, can you find a single guideline that allows POVs in article names?

"A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." T-1000 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I quoted the NPOV policy above. Neutral POV does not mean NO POV. NPOV points to naming conflict, which gives multiple examples of POV disputes in article names, and how to resolve the conflict. It specifically says not to use the subjective criteria of someone else's (the ROC's) moral right to the name, or because it is politically unacceptable (to hardcore nationalists of the ROC). Yes, that is specific endorsement that article titles WILL HAVE A SPECIFIC POV IN SOME INSTANCES. And it also explains how to achieve neutrality, in the text of the article, and with dab headers are the top of the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Again T-1000 insists that it is possible to avoid all POV. He's not really listening. --slashem (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, he is putting the Common names guideline and the Naming conflict guideline in opposition to each other. They are complementary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In fact there are so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines that there are often conflicts. This cannot be avoided and is why policy is not perfect. --slashem (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of ROC's moral right to use the name China. The ROC does still use the name "China", period. That a fact. In accordance with the common names guideline:

"use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. That is the part of the common names guideline that you ignored. Since, "China" obviously conflicts between the PRC and the ROC, "PRC" and "ROC" are used instead. T-1000 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously names will conflict. That is why there is a naming conflict guideline. Don't ignore the conflict guideline, which is very specific, and which the common names guideline defers to in the exceptions section. You are selectively quoting out of context. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

From the naming conflicts guideline: Objective criteria

"Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)"

The name "China" is still used in the ROC constitution.

"Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

The Chen Administration still uses the term "President of the ROC"

As I said, it is the objective criteria that conflict, hence the situation in common names guideline applies. T-1000 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think SchmuckyTheCat is right. The Naming Conflict guideline suggests that "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." We should not try to determine whether the word "China" is good based on POV reasons. —Chris! _ct 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That opens the can of worms again. The common sources (CIA factbook) that is used to prove that "China = PRC", also places Taiwan under the PRC. T-1000 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You only provide one source that places Taiwan under the PRC. And that doesn't even matter, the fact that the One China Policy exists doesn't interfere with what we're trying to do. We have an article about the policy. Taiwan is still the common name of the ROC, China is still the common name of the PRC.--Jerrch 01:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is also in Encyclopaedia Britannica (2002) (Taipei is not highlighted as the capital), and National Geographic Atlas of the World. What is the point of citing these sources if their definition of "China" is different from Wikipedia's? As for the common name, there is still conflict even when using the objective criteria to evaluate them. T-1000 (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Jerrch makes a good point. The sources may differ on what they include as China, but they all refer to simply to "China." We explain — right in the lead that there are two entities called "China." Sunray (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I swear its "neutral point of view"...Faizaguo (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

From the previous posts this Section, it is obvious that the exact nature of the Article is an issue, as China covers three basic governmental eras (see also History of China). From numerous sources, the Sun Empire controlled the real property in question until 1912; the Republic of China, from 1912 to 1949; and the People's Republic of China, since 1949. Multiple articles in the scope of WikiProjects other than WPChina refer to China at various historical points, dependent on the subject matter; as an example, most WPBiography Musician Work Group Articles on current musicians refer to the People's Republic of China, but articles on deceased musicians and defunct bands may refer to any of the three Chinese governmental entities, literally. So, ideally, what needs to be in the Article China to provide context for all three governments that have controlled China proper? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion vs. consensus

As I noted before, T-1000 (talk · contribs) will never change his mind. He is also repeating his arguments and I don't think he has anything new to say. At this time I would prefer to hear from Nat (talk · contribs) and Benjwong (talk · contribs) who are the remaining objectors to using the name China for the PRC. --slashem (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeating arguments? User:SchmuckyTheCat has been repeating the same arguments and expressing his discontent at the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Chinese article since at least September 2007. This issue can't be settled because there is no objective standard to evaluate the significance of the ROC positions.

Schmucky has to repeat his arguments because he keeps trying to talk to you. --slashem (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't debate this seven months ago. Please just look at the talk page of the Chinese Convention. T-1000 (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, This is the current guideline from the Chinese naming conventions: (Redacted for length)

Schmucky has not been successful in getting the guideline changed. The guideline is not my POV. You accuse me of pushing my POV, please stop. T-1000 (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That part of that guideline has not had concensus for over 4 years, if it ever really did. These conversations show that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Based on that naming convention, there is no situation in which "China" should be used after 1947. Given that, we should either direct "China" to a disambiguation page or have the "China" article about pre-1947 China. Naming the current article "China" violates the naming convention.Readin (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

𨳒你，吃屎唔用脑, how about India and Republic of India? 1947年獨立之前就無印度？反華狗永遠是不用脑。 --

That is not a convention, it is disputed. It has a big ugly disputed banner on it, which has been there for years, which T-1000 of course did not mention. It drives me crazy that people think something is authoritative just because it is written down. --slashem (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article is "Naming Convention (Chinese)", how is it not a convention? Wikipedia's standards are always to followed the old guidelines until new ones are established. As for the fact that is it disputed, that is common knowledge here if you bothered to look in the archives, which I told you to do. T-1000 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand what I say. You don't listen to what I say. I really have no interest in talking to you.

However, I must correct you lest you mislead others. A convention is not something imposed by one group on another, it is defined by consensus. There is no consensus behind the article and there never was. And in fact I have read every archive of this talk page, which is how I know it has always been disputed.

Labeling something a convention doesn't make it so. You are like a fundamentalist Christian who thinks everything in the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

I have read all the policies you have quoted here. You persistently misrepresent or misunderstand them, simple examples are when you tried to apply the guideline on article text to article titles, and quoting text without mentioning that it has a disputed banner on it and not even linking to the original so people could see it for themselves. For someone who keeps telling others to read things (and expect them then to agree with you) your reading comprehension is pathetic.

Did you read all the WP:MEDCAB cases like I told you to? Then don't get off telling me what to read. --slashem (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, calm down and stop this immature grudge. Second, how did I not mention that fact that the guidelines are disputed? I gave a link to the original article in the first place in my "repeating arguments" post. But you acted like you have no idea that the guidelines are disputed, which I why I told you to read the talk archive of that page in the first place. As for me misunderstand policies, my understanding of the policies is consistent with the current guidelines. The guidelines are in dispute because the political status of Taiwan itself is in dispute. Simply because the guidelines are disputed does not mean that we don't follow any guidelines. If that is really the case, it be easy for someone with a political agenda to dispute every guideline for the sole purpose of avoiding them. Going by your methods, nearly every guideline on wiki is in dispute, there are pages of discussions for even the NPOV page. T-1000 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Any use of "China" outside of a political context satisfies the guidelines. "The Great Wall is in China. Last September, there were massive floods in southern China. The Three Gorges Dam is in China."--Jiang (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean an article like Shanghai can have a lead that reads something like "Shanghai is in China", but the Politics section of which should remain as mentioning the PRC? --Joowwww (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right Jiang, under the disputed guidelines we can't equate China to mainland China (with or without HK and Macau) in political or diplomatic senses, but we can do so in other senses. So then this article can be about he PRC, but not in the diplomatic or political sense.

So working from that, and knowing that the common usage for "China" is to refer to the country formally known as the PRC, we ought to be able to have an article about mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau that would cover those areas in a non-political way just as the Taiwan article covers the current ROC in a non-political way. Readin (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know, that is what we have now. So nothing needs to be changed. --slashem (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what happened. A long time ago a small group of people who happened to be here first wrote something. Note that even at that time Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) said that the article about the PRC should be titled China. The fact that the guideline cannot be changed now has nothing to do with consensus or NPOV, it is simply because Wikipedia has grown to the point where it is impossible to get consensus for any change, so the status quo is set in stone. And don't think the convention is actually followed on Wikipedia; the status quo is that Wikipedia is inconsistent and it is also impossible to fix all of Wikipedia to follow the convention. So, as I noted before, discussion is just a waste of time. --slashem (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look into the 20 archives with more relevant reasons why the move should never be made. Also SchmuckyTheCat pointed out this has no consensus for 4 years. I'd like to add we are actually doing pretty good. The PRC government still hasn't figured out what China "should be" in 50 some years. Benjwong (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Compared to the PRC government we may be doing "pretty good". But we do worse than any encyclopedia or print publication ever. --slashem (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the source stack we worked on earlier, you'll find that a good fraction of the sources completely disagree with another good fraction on what constitutes "China". They can't both all be right with such disagreement so a significant fraction must be wrong. We may not say anything useful with our article, but at least we can't be said to be wrong.Readin (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no right or wrong regarding political legitimacy, it's all a matter of different opinions, which is why Wikipedia should just report what the sources say. Some people just constantly "dispute" the guidelines until the ROC page is deleted and the Taiwan page is redirect to the Taiwan province, PRC page. What can you do? Too many people believe that "the guidelines are in dispute until my POV is reached" T-1000 (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot "report what the sources say" in choosing an ARTICLE NAME. There can be only one POV as to what the subject of China is. --slashem (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That is only your opinion. Obviously Wikipedia still thinks it's possible to have a neutral title. "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." T-1000 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your persistent out of context and selective quoting of guidelines is becoming a problem. Whenever a line of argument starts running out of steam for you, you circle back to an out of context quote and start over. As has been said repeatedly, this quotation is about descriptive article titles, not proper nouns. Descriptive article titles amount to a phrase - a statement in and of itself. That is fundamentally different than a proper noun. This behavior of repeatedly mischaracterizing and selective quoting is known as tendentious editing. We have policies against that too. It's a waste of time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No. Since the statement before that guideline is "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue." As you yourself admitted, redirecting China = PRC implies that PRC is the legitimate China. This guideline is at Wikipedia:NPOV, the descriptive name guideline is at Wikipedia:name. The two are totally different.

As for repeating arguments, you have been repeating that "ROC fits the subjective criteria because they are a severe minority" since 2005. Look who's talking.T-1000 (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting WP:NPOV. The paragraph after you are quoting covers proper nouns. The one you are quoting is for descriptive names.

Yes, the hardcore KMT position that the ROC represents "China" is an extreme minority to an international English reading audience. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Nowhere in WP:NPOV does it mention the second paragraph only applies to descriptive names. As for the ROC, yes, they are a minority, but stating "They are a severe minority so they fall under the subjective criteria" is your opinion. Obviously, that argument hasn't been able to convince people for three years. T-1000 (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the fundamental problems with this discussion, people think it is about being right or wrong. That is not at all what I am talking about. --slashem (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the song title of Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China. Can it get any more obvious that PRC is not China, but New China. Benjwong (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you also do not know what I am talking about. --slashem (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

== 長駐這裡的反華狗聽著，𨳒𨳊𨶙你！！I will go ahead and update the page ==

Based on the users who support the idea of updating this document, I will go ahead and update this page with the info presented in the 中華人民共和國 page. Be aware that this is progressive modification, it's not a move. 長駐這裡的反華狗聽著，𨳒𨶙𨳊你，想丑化中国？𨳒𨶙𨳊你個老母閪！！--Singaga (talk)

Requested move/RFC

Talk:China/DiscussRM

Mao's portrait

Can anyone tell me the size of Mao's portrait in tianamen square

nikonmark@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.35.101 (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)