In contrast to the notion that a sole "China" page would have to refer to the PRC, couldn't it simply refer to the general historic empire/nation of China then trace its history since it came under PRC control (and perhaps offer a summary of said party's pre-1949 history, as per relevance?). Likewise, couldn't the Taiwan page cover the history of the region/nation that is presently referred to as Taiwan, as well as the history of its post-KMT occupation? Seperate pages could be linked to for the CPC and Kuomingtang respectively; and this would eliminate the problem one user described wherein the Taiwan article might state something to the effect of: "Taiwan fought with the allies in WWII" - instead, it could hypothetically state, "The KMT, who [insert summary of pre-Taiwan occupation history] annexed Taiwan in 1945, and the island has hence been a mation nomminally referred to as the 'Republic of China',", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.10.54 ( talk) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Also note that searching the "ROC" could auto-link you to Taiwan, while searching the "PRC" could auto-link you to China - with their claims still fully documented. This is atleast in line with my Encyclopedia Britannica, which states that "ROC" is the longhand name for a country called "Taiwan", and "PRC" is the longhand name for a country called "China" (the "America" vs. "US" analogy falls flat here, as "United States" is not longhand for a country called "America"). As for the notion that Taiwan's claim (I'll lead by example and not say "ROC's claim") to mainland China needs to be thoroughly represented; I won't even get into the debate, as I feel that others have done an appropriate job illustrating how absurd it is in lieu of common usage, international opinion, and reality itself.
In implementation of the above consensus on the strategy going forward, we will determine the definitional sentence by a simple source stack: whichever definition has the greatest support will be used in the opening. Any that has no significant support among reliable sources will not be used. Please add sources and the precise quote, and sign your name after each item, so that we know who to ask in case of any ambiguity.
I'm not sure if it's essential to know how these sources treat Taiwan, but since some editors in the discussion above seemed to link this article to the Taiwan article, it would perhaps be helpful to also note whether and how each source treats Taiwan. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 00:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This argument against the usage of country is simply politicized nonsense. Let me make this simple: Arabia, for example, is a historical region. Saudi Arabia is a specific state that was established after World War I. The Indus Valley is a region in South Asia that nurtured emerging Indo-Aryan civilizations. India is a country founded after World War II. The Iranian plateau is the location that nurtured the Aryan civilizations. Iran is a country today. Anatolia has been the home for many civilizations; today, Turkey is a country that is founded within the historical region of Anatolia. These comparisons are simply illogical and completely anachronistic. Colloqually, China is a country also known as the PRC. There is a disproportionate number of sources that show this; Wikipedia does not give undue weight to minority views. The fact that a Chinese scholar in the Denver Post even called this article incoherent says something. Nation state (which the PRC is) and civilization are not necessarily interchangeable in every context. The source stack seems completely unnecessary because we already know that most reliable sources available all recognize the PRC as "China," whether or not some people like it or not. Moreover, the negative statement, "China is NOT a country," cannot be verified, and therefore constitutes original research. None of the sources that refer to China as a "civilization" ever suggest that China cannot also be a "country" at the same time; that is a source I am waiting to see. - 98.209.101.146 ( talk) 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
For some reason I can't get to the 2008 edition of the CIA World Factbook, but no doubt it says that China is the PRC too. Readin ( talk) 13:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the change also. Putting it in that manner I also believe would create less confusion.-- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 05:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, why does this not redirect to People's Republic of China? That's surely the overwhelming use of the word. If I wanted an article on chinese civilisation, I would've typed Chinese civilisation. Modest Genius talk 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's NPOV policy:
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
Treating the ROC, which has virtually no recognition, as an equal heir to the name "China" is in fact a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy per undue weight. If the majority of the world (as well as the United Nations, the G8, etc.) and the majority of scholarship recognizes the PRC as China, then it should be treated as China. This is simply a case of Overseas Chinese making a humiliating debacle of Wikipedia just so they can say that they made a statement against the PRC; and, they look as though they are just denigrating the quality of China-related articles and the presentation that they wish to make of their otherwise beautiful culture. This embarrassment should be fixed promptly. If the term "China" doesn't redirect to the PRC, then, at the bare minimum, this page should not be a redirect to "Chinese civilization," but instead an explanation of Two Chinas. - Timour Derevenko ( talk) 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The current article fails to fulfill the very guideline you have transcribed here. Rather than linking to the Two Chinas article, which would provide a more appropriate location to discuss the controversy, we instead have a link to a vaguely related civilization page with a completely disjointed lead and body. It is an article on Chinese civilization, spanning millenia, but half of the history section is now dedicated to the 20th century! Not only is this article arrangement problematic, it has destroyed the Chinese civilization article and has become more or less a copy of what the Two Chinas article should be. What is even more outrageous is that there are editors here who don't even want this page to mention that a country called China exists in the lead.
Whether or not you like it, this format does violate WP:NPOV because there is a significantly greater degree of verifiability with respect to the PRC being labelled "China." In a parallel example, the general term "Holocaust" redirects to the more verifiable Jewish Holocaust, not Nuclear Holocaust. This is not a matter of choosing sides, it is a matter of verifiability and undue weight. If the sources suggest overwhelming recognition of the PRC as "China," then that's what the redirect should be. - Timour Derevenko ( talk) 04:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're all really so exorcised over this, make China a disambiguation page with links to the PRC, Taiwan, ancient China, Chinese civilisation etc. Not perfect, but certainly better than the current nonsense. Modest Genius talk 11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this article must not be very recently updated, because I don't see very much recent information. And what's all this about it not being a country? Yeah, China's sort of a country...Ask, oh, I don't know, 100% of the educated world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 ( talk) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The most common name for the country is "China". This article should be at "Chinese civilization" or "Chinese people". India, Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Mexico, Panama, Australia, etc... all bring you to the country. Out of (approx) 192 countries in the world, I'm pretty sure 191 are straight-minded enough to send the commonplace name for the country to the country.-- Loodog ( talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You are pretty sure, but you are wrong. "China" takes you to an article on civilization rather than the country. "Taiwan" takes you to an article on the island rather than the country. 192-2=190. Readin ( talk) 18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Indentations got insane. Neither have you proven that that usage is any more common than PRC, which is the underlying assumption behind making this page go here.
As for National Geographic, they "took sides" by making PRC, and historical "China" synonymous. Their usage is that of a common country dating back hundreds of years, which had been ruled by different dynasties and governments. This is the overwhelmingly common way to do it in all writing I've seen (maybe this is just the way the West does it), all speech I've heard, and all news media. It wouldn't be out of line to hear an article saying, "China's Olympic hosting came under fire today. The nation, one of the cradles of early civilization..."
You can try to split the country from its past by definition, but this is not common usage. Since you maintain this is taking sides (which it isn't any more than acknowledging Israel's existence is), we're left with two distinct articles. If you're going to partition it this way, then we at least need to redirect to a disambig and NOT a redirect to something I (and likely countless others) didn't want to be brought to when I typed in "China". If I wanted Ancient China, or the Ming Dynasty and didn't expect it here, I would have typed in "Chinese civilization".-- Loodog ( talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Loodog, I don't see how China could be anything other than the PRC. One could argue that it could be referred to the ROC, but the ROC is not located on China anymore. I don't think this is controversial. Most importantly, the
naming convention clearly states that we should use the common name for everything.--
Jerrch 01:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, the People's Republic of China should be at the China article, and the Republic of China should be at the Taiwan article. It's not about who says what is where, it's about common usage and current recognised extent of control. The ROC only controls Taiwan, even though it says the ROC is both China and Taiwan, and the PRC only controls China, even though it says the PRC is both China and Taiwan. I know there has been discussion or consensus before but re-evaluations are needed especially when the term "China" is increasingly being used to refer to the PRC. -- Joowwww ( talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
So does anyone except T-1000 actually object to China redirecting to the PRC? Modest Genius talk 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Benjwong seems to. As do I. And clearly, there is no consensus to take such actions to redirect this article to the People's Republic of China. nat.u toronto 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Gomeying ( talk) 13:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC) It doesn't have to discuss in such depth. For most people, China means the present boundary of People's Republic of China which includes/excludes Taiwan (depending on your political view). Please do not argue of some silly technical argument.
"Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on controversial sovereignty issues such as the political status of Taiwan and Tibet. Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense referring to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China — (geographically) Mainland China, whether alone or together with Hong Kong and Macau. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945—1947 excepted.)" T-1000 ( talk) 03:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So according to the naming conventions this article should only contain information about pre-1947? Readin ( talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone's comment above echoed what I've been thinking for awhile - why the hurry? What has changed recently to make this become such a 'hot' topic? What has changed recently to make people come here and demand changes? Perhaps if we knew, we could add this to the things to consider.
Reviewing the page history, there's been about 1750 edits about the name issue in just 6 months or so. Before that there were about 250 edits on other issues in 7-8 months.
What has changed about Chinese civilisation in the last half-year? Shenme ( talk) 06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure tha it is more urgent than before, but this paragraph is an example of why we need a change:
Most Chinese dynasties were based in the historical heartlands of China, known as China proper. Various dynasties also expanded into peripheral territories like Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjiang, and Tibet. The Manchu-established Qing Dynasty and its successors, the ROC and the PRC, incorporated these territories into China.
The article is supposedly about the a civilization called "China". If that is the case, how could the ROC and PRC possibly incorporated those countries into it's "civilization". They made them part of the same state, not the same civilization. Unless the "China" article is about the country or state, then that paragraph really needs to go. In fact having places like Xinjiang and Tibet in this article is highly dubious so long as the article is not about the country formally known as the People's Republic of China. Readin ( talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The origin of the Tibetan script is rather obscure. Tibetan Buddhist tradition states that it was created by Minister Thon mi Sambhota in northeastern India by order of the Tibetan king Srong btsan sgam po. On the other hand, the Bon po religious tradition maintains that the script came from Iranian or Central Asian origins. Nevertheless I ate some tacos, no matter how it came into Tibetan, the script's structure clearly suggests that its ultimate ancestor is the Brahmi script of India: (a) each sign is actually a syllable consisting of a consonant plus the vowel /a/; (b) the ordering of the characters are same as in Brahmi; and (c) the way the vowels /i/, /u/, /e/, and /o/ are represented by marks above and below the signs.
In contrast to the notion that a sole "China" page would have to refer to the PRC, couldn't it simply refer to the general historic empire/nation of China then trace its history since it came under PRC control (and perhaps offer a summary of said party's pre-1949 history, as per relevance?). Likewise, couldn't the Taiwan page cover the history of the region/nation that is presently referred to as Taiwan, as well as the history of its post-KMT occupation? Seperate pages could be linked to for the CPC and Kuomingtang respectively; and this would eliminate the problem one user described wherein the Taiwan article might state something to the effect of: "Taiwan fought with the allies in WWII" - instead, it could hypothetically state, "The KMT, who [insert summary of pre-Taiwan occupation history] annexed Taiwan in 1945, and the island has hence been a mation nomminally referred to as the 'Republic of China',", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.10.54 ( talk) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Also note that searching the "ROC" could auto-link you to Taiwan, while searching the "PRC" could auto-link you to China - with their claims still fully documented. This is atleast in line with my Encyclopedia Britannica, which states that "ROC" is the longhand name for a country called "Taiwan", and "PRC" is the longhand name for a country called "China" (the "America" vs. "US" analogy falls flat here, as "United States" is not longhand for a country called "America"). As for the notion that Taiwan's claim (I'll lead by example and not say "ROC's claim") to mainland China needs to be thoroughly represented; I won't even get into the debate, as I feel that others have done an appropriate job illustrating how absurd it is in lieu of common usage, international opinion, and reality itself.
In implementation of the above consensus on the strategy going forward, we will determine the definitional sentence by a simple source stack: whichever definition has the greatest support will be used in the opening. Any that has no significant support among reliable sources will not be used. Please add sources and the precise quote, and sign your name after each item, so that we know who to ask in case of any ambiguity.
I'm not sure if it's essential to know how these sources treat Taiwan, but since some editors in the discussion above seemed to link this article to the Taiwan article, it would perhaps be helpful to also note whether and how each source treats Taiwan. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 00:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This argument against the usage of country is simply politicized nonsense. Let me make this simple: Arabia, for example, is a historical region. Saudi Arabia is a specific state that was established after World War I. The Indus Valley is a region in South Asia that nurtured emerging Indo-Aryan civilizations. India is a country founded after World War II. The Iranian plateau is the location that nurtured the Aryan civilizations. Iran is a country today. Anatolia has been the home for many civilizations; today, Turkey is a country that is founded within the historical region of Anatolia. These comparisons are simply illogical and completely anachronistic. Colloqually, China is a country also known as the PRC. There is a disproportionate number of sources that show this; Wikipedia does not give undue weight to minority views. The fact that a Chinese scholar in the Denver Post even called this article incoherent says something. Nation state (which the PRC is) and civilization are not necessarily interchangeable in every context. The source stack seems completely unnecessary because we already know that most reliable sources available all recognize the PRC as "China," whether or not some people like it or not. Moreover, the negative statement, "China is NOT a country," cannot be verified, and therefore constitutes original research. None of the sources that refer to China as a "civilization" ever suggest that China cannot also be a "country" at the same time; that is a source I am waiting to see. - 98.209.101.146 ( talk) 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
For some reason I can't get to the 2008 edition of the CIA World Factbook, but no doubt it says that China is the PRC too. Readin ( talk) 13:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the change also. Putting it in that manner I also believe would create less confusion.-- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 05:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, why does this not redirect to People's Republic of China? That's surely the overwhelming use of the word. If I wanted an article on chinese civilisation, I would've typed Chinese civilisation. Modest Genius talk 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's NPOV policy:
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
Treating the ROC, which has virtually no recognition, as an equal heir to the name "China" is in fact a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy per undue weight. If the majority of the world (as well as the United Nations, the G8, etc.) and the majority of scholarship recognizes the PRC as China, then it should be treated as China. This is simply a case of Overseas Chinese making a humiliating debacle of Wikipedia just so they can say that they made a statement against the PRC; and, they look as though they are just denigrating the quality of China-related articles and the presentation that they wish to make of their otherwise beautiful culture. This embarrassment should be fixed promptly. If the term "China" doesn't redirect to the PRC, then, at the bare minimum, this page should not be a redirect to "Chinese civilization," but instead an explanation of Two Chinas. - Timour Derevenko ( talk) 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The current article fails to fulfill the very guideline you have transcribed here. Rather than linking to the Two Chinas article, which would provide a more appropriate location to discuss the controversy, we instead have a link to a vaguely related civilization page with a completely disjointed lead and body. It is an article on Chinese civilization, spanning millenia, but half of the history section is now dedicated to the 20th century! Not only is this article arrangement problematic, it has destroyed the Chinese civilization article and has become more or less a copy of what the Two Chinas article should be. What is even more outrageous is that there are editors here who don't even want this page to mention that a country called China exists in the lead.
Whether or not you like it, this format does violate WP:NPOV because there is a significantly greater degree of verifiability with respect to the PRC being labelled "China." In a parallel example, the general term "Holocaust" redirects to the more verifiable Jewish Holocaust, not Nuclear Holocaust. This is not a matter of choosing sides, it is a matter of verifiability and undue weight. If the sources suggest overwhelming recognition of the PRC as "China," then that's what the redirect should be. - Timour Derevenko ( talk) 04:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're all really so exorcised over this, make China a disambiguation page with links to the PRC, Taiwan, ancient China, Chinese civilisation etc. Not perfect, but certainly better than the current nonsense. Modest Genius talk 11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this article must not be very recently updated, because I don't see very much recent information. And what's all this about it not being a country? Yeah, China's sort of a country...Ask, oh, I don't know, 100% of the educated world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 ( talk) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The most common name for the country is "China". This article should be at "Chinese civilization" or "Chinese people". India, Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Mexico, Panama, Australia, etc... all bring you to the country. Out of (approx) 192 countries in the world, I'm pretty sure 191 are straight-minded enough to send the commonplace name for the country to the country.-- Loodog ( talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You are pretty sure, but you are wrong. "China" takes you to an article on civilization rather than the country. "Taiwan" takes you to an article on the island rather than the country. 192-2=190. Readin ( talk) 18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Indentations got insane. Neither have you proven that that usage is any more common than PRC, which is the underlying assumption behind making this page go here.
As for National Geographic, they "took sides" by making PRC, and historical "China" synonymous. Their usage is that of a common country dating back hundreds of years, which had been ruled by different dynasties and governments. This is the overwhelmingly common way to do it in all writing I've seen (maybe this is just the way the West does it), all speech I've heard, and all news media. It wouldn't be out of line to hear an article saying, "China's Olympic hosting came under fire today. The nation, one of the cradles of early civilization..."
You can try to split the country from its past by definition, but this is not common usage. Since you maintain this is taking sides (which it isn't any more than acknowledging Israel's existence is), we're left with two distinct articles. If you're going to partition it this way, then we at least need to redirect to a disambig and NOT a redirect to something I (and likely countless others) didn't want to be brought to when I typed in "China". If I wanted Ancient China, or the Ming Dynasty and didn't expect it here, I would have typed in "Chinese civilization".-- Loodog ( talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Loodog, I don't see how China could be anything other than the PRC. One could argue that it could be referred to the ROC, but the ROC is not located on China anymore. I don't think this is controversial. Most importantly, the
naming convention clearly states that we should use the common name for everything.--
Jerrch 01:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, the People's Republic of China should be at the China article, and the Republic of China should be at the Taiwan article. It's not about who says what is where, it's about common usage and current recognised extent of control. The ROC only controls Taiwan, even though it says the ROC is both China and Taiwan, and the PRC only controls China, even though it says the PRC is both China and Taiwan. I know there has been discussion or consensus before but re-evaluations are needed especially when the term "China" is increasingly being used to refer to the PRC. -- Joowwww ( talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
So does anyone except T-1000 actually object to China redirecting to the PRC? Modest Genius talk 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Benjwong seems to. As do I. And clearly, there is no consensus to take such actions to redirect this article to the People's Republic of China. nat.u toronto 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Gomeying ( talk) 13:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC) It doesn't have to discuss in such depth. For most people, China means the present boundary of People's Republic of China which includes/excludes Taiwan (depending on your political view). Please do not argue of some silly technical argument.
"Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on controversial sovereignty issues such as the political status of Taiwan and Tibet. Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense referring to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China — (geographically) Mainland China, whether alone or together with Hong Kong and Macau. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945—1947 excepted.)" T-1000 ( talk) 03:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So according to the naming conventions this article should only contain information about pre-1947? Readin ( talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone's comment above echoed what I've been thinking for awhile - why the hurry? What has changed recently to make this become such a 'hot' topic? What has changed recently to make people come here and demand changes? Perhaps if we knew, we could add this to the things to consider.
Reviewing the page history, there's been about 1750 edits about the name issue in just 6 months or so. Before that there were about 250 edits on other issues in 7-8 months.
What has changed about Chinese civilisation in the last half-year? Shenme ( talk) 06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure tha it is more urgent than before, but this paragraph is an example of why we need a change:
Most Chinese dynasties were based in the historical heartlands of China, known as China proper. Various dynasties also expanded into peripheral territories like Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Xinjiang, and Tibet. The Manchu-established Qing Dynasty and its successors, the ROC and the PRC, incorporated these territories into China.
The article is supposedly about the a civilization called "China". If that is the case, how could the ROC and PRC possibly incorporated those countries into it's "civilization". They made them part of the same state, not the same civilization. Unless the "China" article is about the country or state, then that paragraph really needs to go. In fact having places like Xinjiang and Tibet in this article is highly dubious so long as the article is not about the country formally known as the People's Republic of China. Readin ( talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The origin of the Tibetan script is rather obscure. Tibetan Buddhist tradition states that it was created by Minister Thon mi Sambhota in northeastern India by order of the Tibetan king Srong btsan sgam po. On the other hand, the Bon po religious tradition maintains that the script came from Iranian or Central Asian origins. Nevertheless I ate some tacos, no matter how it came into Tibetan, the script's structure clearly suggests that its ultimate ancestor is the Brahmi script of India: (a) each sign is actually a syllable consisting of a consonant plus the vowel /a/; (b) the ordering of the characters are same as in Brahmi; and (c) the way the vowels /i/, /u/, /e/, and /o/ are represented by marks above and below the signs.