User:Xiong/Chinatalk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add

Contents

[edit] Xiong's last word (v2)

Every Chinese name for every Chinese thing has a long Chinese history, often stretching across millenia. Wars, rival states, and blood feuds alternate with long periods of relative stability and unity, during which the preferences of the current regime are painstakingly graven, not merely in stone, but in blood. The traditional system of examination for aspiring bureaucrats put a premium upon conformity, while modern Chinese history is rife with examples of powerful leaders who attempted to define reality by enforcing rules about speech. The Chinese invented spin doctors (as so many things) while other peoples were still debating whether to honor their gods by slaughtering virgins or mere beasts.

PRC and ROC, whatever you call them, each have a number of fanatic adherants whose primary focus is on eliminating the language used by the other group. There is no such thing as a moderate or neutral position. Each side has defined all utterances not firmly within its camp as opposition. This is an Orwellian approach to winning a argument: Force all parties to discuss it in terms that guarantee the outcome.

The Wikipedia debate on What Is China is a mere reflection in a raindrop of a raging sea. We will not settle this issue here. To repeat: We will not settle this issue here. If you feel strongly about this issue, I address you directly: People who hold the opinion which opposes yours will be tolerated on WP. You will not win. They will not win. You may get rid of me, but you will not get rid of them.

[edit] Apology

I admit I have spoken intemperately. For those readers who do not read Chinese, that is exactly what /*xiongxiong*/, 熊熊 means: "raging and flaming" -- that is, hopping mad. 熊, my Chinese name, simply means "bear", and I like to think of myself as a cuddly, sociable bear, the sort made into stuffed toys suitable for a small child's pillow. I often use strong language, but I assume we are all adults and can take a little ruffhousing. I don't mean any disrespect or intend any harm. Most of the time. I won't pretend I haven't been sincerly angry these past few days.

This issue has pushed me right over the edge. WP is the greatest thing to hit the net since -- hell, I don't know. It's the first project to even begin to fulfill the potential of Tim Berners-Lee's epochal concept of hypertext. Compared to WP, everything that has gone before is just SPAM. I cannot understand why anyone would vandalize it. And a senseless debate that rages out of control all over the project is just that: vandalism.

None of this justifies anger. It justifies action, but not anger. This is a lesson that has taken me a long time to learn, and I am still learning it. We live in a world in which a few arrogant Powers on one hand, and a great mass of fools on the other, squeeze the very life out of the substantial body of men and women of Good Sense and Good Will. We cannot combat Evil by becoming Evil, or even nasty, ourselves; we must remain polite and calm in the face of utmost provocation. Otherwise, we contribute to the problem, not the solution.

I offer my most sincere apologies to any who have been offended.

[edit] Jurisdiction

This holy war has disrupted WP long enough. Consensus on settlement is as impossible to achieve as consensus on the substantive issue or the language concerned. Imposition by fiat of settlement from without is vital to the preservation of the larger community. Longtime members, with official powers and authority, have failed exert control -- why, I cannot say. I despise those who abuse power and, given it, do my utmost to wield it fairly -- but in a case like this, I would fear no criticism. The situation demands immediate correction. Everyone is running away from the fire; I cannot say why I am running in, but Somebody must.

Despite my online handle in this and other forums, I am not Chinese; merely a Pennsylvanian who suffers from a fascination with all things Chinese. All things, that is, barring the bitter dispute which brings me here today, away from much more interesting editing tasks, not to mention installation of a newly purchased computer game. So, for the duration, I am no longer merely 熊， but 熊熊。 By virtue of my position as a truly disinterested and neutral party, I assume the burden of imposing a settlement upon the combatants.

[edit] Settlement (v2)

This is proving a Stygian task and I must scale it back. I retract limitations on edit wars; you can indulge until some Real Authority stops you. However, my remedy for uncontrolled debate stands.

  • Debate on this issue (substantive debate, metadebate, terminology debate) shall not disrupt the community or overshadow legitimate discussion of other Chinese issues. All debate on this issue will take place here: User:Xiong/Chinatalk. I will take no responsibility for imposing civility on that page.

[edit] Metametadebate

I will not entertain metametadebate (for example, "You don't have a right to do this!" and "This will never work!") on my personal Talk page. You may chide me here: User talk:Xiong/Chinatalk. Your criticism may well be deserved, and if you make it in the designated place, in a civil tone, I will do my best to respond. Metametadebate found on my Talk page will be moved here soonest.

[edit] Enforcement

This is not a proposal; it is a statement of my personal intent. I will move out-of-control debate where it belongs. I should dearly love to extend myself to other hotly debated debates, but "China and What It Is" is enough for one man. This is my settlement.

[edit] Arrogance, WP Policy, and the Powers-that-Be

I maintain that I am fully within WP policy in my actions -- which, by the way, I now restrict to discussion areas. It is always appropriate to archive debate and split overly long pages -- and any page upon which this debate spills instantly goes overlength. Every such page is flagged right at the top of the edit box, and encourages me to do something about the technically disruptive length of the material. Preserving and moving all such debate to a central location is correct action and entirely in policy. As the material I move is all discussion material, which should not have been subjected to revision, cut-and-paste archival is appropriate and, indeed, prescribed. I do not arrogate any special power to myself; I merely fulfill the duty of every Wikipedian who finds a mess on the board.

If you have been long here and gained much power, perhaps you simply feel anyone as small as myself should stand in the corner and be quiet. You know, I pretty much agree. I don't mind a little lively discussion about the pitfalls of pinyin or the fallacy inherent in equating databases with DBMS. But I would not stick my head into a buzzsaw unless I thought it absolutely necessary.

If you think I shouldn't be doing this, I strongly suggest you go ahead and do it yourself. You can do it better than I -- not only due to your greater power, but due to your greater experience and to the greater respect you command. You can probably think of a better way to do it, perhaps even a better thing to do. Just don't tell me everything's going to be okay when it so obviously is not.

One way or another -- even if it means a stinking nobody sock puppet has to take the bullet for it -- all Wikipedians need to see Somebody stand up and defend the principle of a civil, collaborative, congenial, constructive community. Vandals, trolls, fanatics, and One-thing People must be shown that this is not the place for their kind.

And that is my very last word--for now. — Xiong (talk) 02:18, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

[edit] ..of Taiwan → ..of the Republic of China

continued from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/archive4#..of Taiwan .26rarr.3B ..of the Republic of China and #Solution

[edit] Solution

Is it time to reach a solution? Shall we go on a poll? — Instantnood 23:06, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • As the one who initiated the discussion, I support the moves. — Instantnood 17:35, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ..of China or ..of the PRC → ..of mainland China

Learnt from the lesson on Wikipedia:Requested moves, a consensus here is essential and a prerequisite.

Important note

This is not a debate on the naming conventions, but its application and enforcement. Please do not oppose the moves just because you oppose the naming conventions. If you do want to comment on the current naming conventions, please start a new section on this page.

Precedents

on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion: (#1 and #2)

existing articles: List of Chinese companies, Demographics of China, Cinema of China

Naming conventions

Relevant statements from the naming conventions: " Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China." ". (Obviously "mainland China" is the appropriate term to describe the situation which Hong Kong and Macao (and the territories under the ROC) are excluded.)

Also relevant: " Wikipedia reflects the neutral reality and considers the term "China" not to coincide with any particular sovereign state or government. In particular, the word "China" should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration of the People's Republic of China or with Mainland China. ".

Categories and articles involved

It is not necessary to support or oppose all of the moves below. In other words, you can object on the general direction, but support one or some of them, or vice versa.

Categories

Articles

(Note: This list should not be considered a full list. Some categories and articles might have not been identified.)

The moves do not apply to some articles and categories, such as the followings.

Categories

Articles

Basics 1

These articles or sections let you be more familiar with the issue.

One Country, Two Systems, History of Hong Kong, History of Macau, Sino-British Joint Declaration, Basic Law of Hong Kong, Politics of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, Hong Kong dollar, Pataca, Hong Kong International Airport#Anomalies, Economy of Hong Kong, Court of Final Appeal, Mainland China, Talk:Mainland China, Category talk:Cities in China, Category talk:Airports of the People's Republic of China, Category talk:Cities in China (more articles or sections would be added)

Important disclaimer: the list of articles and categories above have been compiled for some time, and the ongoing edit and revert wars staged recently by Huaiwei have made it necessary to bring the issue here earlier.

If there is no objection, the consensus here will serve as a precedance in future for articles sharing the common title problem. — Instantnood 22:59, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on "China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China"

Note: Here's a place for discussion. This is not a poll.

Object, yes, object! The term "mainland China" is absolutely meaningless semantic drivel. It should be removed from the naming conventions. "Mainland China" should be used rarely (or not at all! use a more specific term) to disambiguate from the greater "China". "China" in general refers to the anything Chinese. It is also understood as a general term to refer to the PRC and it's possessions. English allows fluidity around a term and people understand meaning by context. There is not a need to rename articles from "China" to be more specific that it is only certain parts of PRC China. People understand, do not dumbify to uselessness because of some naming convention. If Tourism in China doesn't refer to Hong Kong or some other place, then just make a statement of that in the article, don't rename the article. There are multiple governments that use the term "China" but sorry, the PRC is the 800lb gorilla. Will your next crusade be to start renaming anything with "America" in the title to refer only to "The United States of America"? SchmuckyTheCat 23:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" is not just a casual or informal term. The phrase "the mainland of China" is used in laws in Hong Kong (search for "mainland of China" at http://www.legislation.gov.hk). The Mainland Affairs Commission (MAC) of the Executive Yuan of the ROC also uses the term "mainland China" (see Talk:Mainland China). And please bear in mind this is not a debate on the naming conventions, but its application. — Instantnood 00:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
This is 'talk:naming conventions' and if I want to say the naming conventions are bad, i will. I won't let the "Executive Yuan of the ROC" (the ROC being Taiwan) define the name used by an emerging superpower nation-state. It may be a useful term for subentities that are NOT part of "mainland China" to differentiate themselves but it is the wrong term to use for the main entity. HK and Taiwan don't get to define China. China does and the one word "China" is it. SchmuckyTheCat 01:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good. I am interested to know how you'd comment on the following materials produced by the PRC government.
  • Latest Satistics on SARS on Mainland China (15/04/2003) [1]
  • Education System in Mainland China [2]
  • Regulations of the State Council for Encouragement of Investment by Overseas Chinese and Compatriots from Hong Kong and Macao [3]
  • Reform gradualism and evolution of exchange rate regime in Mainland China (a speech delievered by the governor of the People's Bank of China) (doc format) [4]
If you want to comment on the naming conventions, please start a new section. — Instantnood 01:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the PRC is differentiating from the other regions it controls. SchmuckyTheCat 04:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Right. In other words the term "mainland China" is not only used by Hong Kong or the ROC, but also the PRC itself. — Instantnood 15:07, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Object. Obviously an objection is in order, especially when there is actually a proclaimation that this result is going to form the basis for ALL the above changes! Each of those cases warrant discussions of their own.--Huaiwei 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not the case. — Instantnood 01:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
In reference to?--Huaiwei 05:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object For the reasons outlined above. How long will it take for Instantnood to recognise he is in a minority here, that many people have read his arguments, but disagree with them, and that WP is governed by consensus? jguk 19:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object "of mainland China" is ugly and cumbersome. If particular regions are included/excluded and confusion may otherwise occur, put it in the text. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 20:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I support consistency. If the Wikipedia community had a consensus on the naming convention of Mainland China, China, People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Republic of China, etc., and the opposers failed to change the status quo in the "Political NPOV section", we should make the article titles and Categories consistent with the policy. Yes, someone may say that they look ugly and that most Western media ignore those fine details, but the consensus was to be accurate and to educate the public. I still find the old consensus make sense for an encyclopedia. -- Felix Wan 02:06, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

  • there isn't a naming convention for "mainland china" other than as an acceptable term when the need to differentiate from the greater China is necessary. Most of the time, and most of these changes, that differentiation isn't necessary. Using "mainland China" as a primary term is actually against the convention. (added by SchmuckyTheCat at 06:45, Mar 12, 2005)
The term "Mainland China" has never been accepted as an agreeable term to refer to the country. Refer to below.--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Even by doing so it is not used to referred to as a country, but a part (though a major part) of a country. It is a matter of presentation. It does not imply mainland China itself is a sovereign state. — Instantnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
So long that the above categories are classifications by country, then you are indeed calling "Mainland China" a country. Refer to below.--Huaiwei 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Quoted from your words at Talk:Mainland China " more because of presentation issues then fact. " when commenting on the list of countries by area. — Instantnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
And what is wrong with that quote? The PRC often refers to the ROC as "Taiwan", avoiding the term "ROC" because it refuses to recognise it. The ROC refers to the PRC as "Mainland China" because it also refuses to recognise the PRC. But does this than equate to "Mainland China" and "Taiwan" becoming acceptable names for countries, although it is very much more common for the later, and although some of us have been criticising that assumption?--Huaiwei 16:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Then am I calling "mainland China" as a country, or is it just an issue of presentation? — Instantnood 16:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
You are presenting the term as a country. And I dispute that, if that is not obvious by now.--Huaiwei 16:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I support as well. And I don't think things would look ugly at all if they're changed. Why are people so afraid of the term "mainland China"? -- ran (talk) 02:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

My reason for disagreeing with the above is this. The term "Mainland China" itself may not be a major issue, but it is often a sub-category of categories filed by country. So, "Roads of China", for example, may come under a category "Roads by country". When we rename "Roads of China" as "Roads of Mainland China", we end up having "Mainland China" appearing as a country amongst other country entries. I do not find that acceptable. When the title reads as "XXX of China", I feel we have room to have "XX of HK", "XX of Macau" and "XX of Taiwan/ROC" appearing both as subcategories of "XX of China" as per our conventions set earlier, plus also appearing in the "XXX" by country category as well as a bonus. Personally, I prefer to see "XXX of China" split into "XX of the PRC" and "XX of ROC/Taiwan" and have "XX of Hong Kong" and "XX of Macau" as subcategories of "XX of the PRC". Isnt this the proper way that countries should be filed as?--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you argue in this way then strictly speaking the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan) are not two countries. They belong to the same country, and technically a country in war time that two powers controlling different parts of the country. In other words neither the PRC nor the ROC is qualified to be listed or categorised as country. — Instantnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Precisely because the two are in theory not countries, that we have some pages with "XXX in China" which contains information on both the PRC and the ROC. This has been well explained in this very convention, even if it was contested. If we apply that logic to pages, I dont see why it canot be applied to categories. What you are doing to the categories runs contrary to conventions. For example, why do you resist my restoration of "Category:Airports in China" to include all subcategories related to both airports in the PRC and the ROC, and instead tried to remove "Category:Airports of Hong Kong" and "Category:Airports of Macau" out of that category, plus revert my inclusion of "Category:Airports of Taiwan" within that category (although I also allowed it to appear seperately at the same time)?--Huaiwei 13:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please refer to the current treatment at Demographics of China and List of Chinese companies. — Instantnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Oh....so you are telling me "Mainland China" gets listed as a country in those two instances? Thanks. Something needs to be done about them then! Meanwhile, did anyone not notice that Instantnood has been silently moving plenty of those pages to the "Mainland China" category in place of the PRC?--Huaiwei 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The real side of the fact is that the English word "country" is a relatively vague concept, as oppose to "sovereign state". Many lists or categories all across Wikipedia are not limited to cover only sovereign states. — Instantnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
If you are going to contest the notion of what "country" means, then you have to go beyond this small little exercise here. If you want consistency, and to accept that the term is vague, then may I ask if you allow the creation of "Category:Airports of Kurdistan" and "Category:Airports of Tibet" and list then independently, since they are also "countries" by certain definitions? And meanwhile, how would you treat any classification related to the United Kingdom, since it is composed of countries? Meanwhile, could you tell us just how often is the term "Mainland China" considered a "country" even if we were to consider the word "country" as contestable, which is true in actual fact?--Huaiwei 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As you like it. But I am afraid everyone can tell. — Instantnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Answer those questions.--Huaiwei 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Except diplomatic relations and national defence, Hong Kong and Macao are on their own. Ministries of the CPG of the PRC have no jurisdiction over Hong Kong and Macao affairs. For instance if Hong Kong has to build an additional university it is not the business of the education ministry of the PRC. — Instantnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
This point has been repeated over and over. Yes, we are more then aware that the two SARS SARs run their own economical and transportational affairs. But as has also been repeatedly retorted, we are talking about a classification along political lines here. Having a classification of XXX, even if it has nothing to do with politics, appearing in a classiciation by country is not a politically NPOV. Try creating "Category:Musicians of Tibet" and then listing it in "Category:Musicians by country" instead of "Category:Musicians of China", and then come tell me if that is a politically NPOV?--Huaiwei 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please tell why Tibet is a valid and applicable analogy here. — Instantnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
You insisted that so long that the topic in question is not political, it is ok to ignore political considerations in presentation. Fine. I chose Tibet because it is so damn obvious. You can ask yourself how it will be like if do it with Shanghai too for all I care, coz the same theory applies.--Huaiwei 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In other words you're implying the case of Tibet is comparable, and therefore Tibet is a valid and applicable analogy, am I right? — Instantnood 16:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. Feel free to substitute with any other political entity you can think of. ;)--Huaiwei 16:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support. It's clear that the conventions have been defined beforehand and we should try to adhere to those standards. If people have problems with the convention itself, that should have been brought up beforehand. BTW, some of the articles you proposed to rename probably don't apply. For instance, the current text in Tourism in China talks about both mainland and Taiwan, so keeping it as "China" should be fine since China refers to the region as a whole. Transportation in China seems to talk a bit about Hong Kong too, so maybe it should be Transportation in the People's Republic of China instead of Transportation in Mainland China. Anyway, these are just nitpicks that can be ironed out beforehand, but I do support the general proposal of renaming some articles in order to adhere to the naming conventions. --Umofomia 06:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess the content of some of the articles might have to be slightly modified, for instance Transportation in China. — Instantnood 07:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
In the same way that you can modify the contents so that they suit the new categories, they can also be modified to suit the existing categories.--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Right. — Instantnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
The conventions, however, did not state that "Mainland China" is an acceptable equivalant to refer to the PRC as a country. Do note, as I said before, that these categories are also classified under "XXX by country". I do not think there is a country called "Mainland China". The only reason Hong Kong and Macau sometimes appears under country listings is due to the 1 country 2 systems formula, which I am more then open to allow them appearing both as countries or as being classified under the PRC, or either one as the situation deems it neccesary.--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In this proposal "mainland China" is not used as an equivalent to the PRC. The scope of the content of the articles or categories covers only the mainland China, and therefore they need a proper title. Having them subcategorised undermine their character as dependent territories (or special territories, as you may prefer) instead of ordinary subnational entities. — Instantnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
This assumption is only true, if you also then create new categories called "XXX of the People's Republic of China" and then make "XXX of Mainland China", "XXX of Hong Kong" and "XXX of Macau" as subcategories of it. The fact is that each of the above categories you are trying to rename are subcateries of "XXX by country" so you are, intentionally or otherwise, equating to insisting that the "People's Republic of China" has to be called "Mainland China" in country lists. I do not find that acceptable, unless you do what I suggested above. Trying to create international space for Hong Kong-related articles is perfectly alright as far as knowledge and this encyclopedia is concerned, but to therefore cause the international standing of another entity, and in this case, the holding entity of Hong Kong, to suffer by refering to it merely with a sub-geographical name when refering to the country is an extreme exercise we cannot take lightly.--Huaiwei 13:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comments: I think User:Huaiwei did raise a valid point, which I had overlooked: the current convention is silent about whether we can list mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan among the other countries in non-political context. We may need to find some consensus on clarifying the convention before we decide on the move. Let's look at the problem using one example: The current Category:Airlines of Asia consists of subcategories Category:Airlines of China, Category:Airlines of Hong Kong and Category:Airlines of Taiwan and the article Air Macau. All other subcategories are airlines of sovereign states. The three subcategories do not have further subcategories. That appears wrong, but how to fix it?
Politically, although Hong Kong and Taiwan are not countries, listing them among other countries are allowed in the context of "airlines". For all practical reasons the three regions have independent administration of their airlines. There is no political dispute about that. On the other hand, listing Tibet among the list is not appropriate. However, it seems to be more appropriate to replace "China" with "mainland China" for two reasons:
  1. That category actually excludes airlines from other regions of "China". "Mainland China" is the accurate description there according to the convention.
  2. Listing "China" among "Hong Kong" and "Taiwan" seems to imply that the last two are not part of "China".
That was how I came to the same conclusion as User:Instantnood that most of the moves listed should be done according to the current convention.
If I understand the logic of User:Huaiwei correctly, he/she would suggest that we have only one Category:Airlines of China at that level, listed among other countries, and then have Category:Airlines of mainland China, Category:Airlines of Hong Kong and Category:Airlines of Taiwan listed as subcategories. Personally I find that acceptable too, but I am afraid other Wikipedians may not. It may also be difficult for someone unfamiliar with the politics of that region to find the last two categories if they are not listed among the Asian countries but only as a subcategory of China.
Let's discuss on how to resolve the issue using that example, and see if we can set a standard and state it clear as the convention. -- Felix Wan 02:11, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
  • Felix, many of us DO disagree with the NPOV section of the naming convention but either nobody wants to have that discussion or when it occurs, it occurs within the context of proposals like this, where it doesn't actually affect the main article. I for one, have no problem with airlines of HK being a sub of Airlines of the PRC, or Airlines of China, and Taiwan being seperate altogether from either, maybe in Airlines of Asia, as it's own independent entity WHICH IT IS, and which the naming conventions ALSO say is an acceptable solution. SchmuckyTheCat 02:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with that arrangement either, but I am sure someone will oppose it strongly. What I want is just a consensus on one convention and then apply it consistenly. By the way, there IS a discussion on the NPOV section on this page. If we can come up with any decision in this context, we should also change the main article accordingly. So feel free to discuss here or in that section. -- Felix Wan 04:05, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
I would like to remind the participants that claiming Taiwan being not a country is a clear POV and not neutral. The ROC government made it clear many times: ROC is an independent sovereign country. Although I also tend to disagree with that claim either. To be more precise, Taiwan is a territory under ROC occupation, my POV. (added by Mababa at 08:57, Mar 16, 2005)
Thanks Mababa. The most tend-to-NPOV treatment would be a description of the status quo, by saying Taiwan is a territory currently administered by the ROC (without addressing its legality). It is a POV and is not neutral to say Taiwan is currently a sovereign state on its own. — Instantnood 09:44, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for Instantnood's response. For that very reason, that is why we have this long discussion about separating Taiwan from ROC. But again, though my POV supports this treatment, many people use the terms interchangably to refer the government. Though we do not adapt that POV and use it as truth, I believe that we should at least reflect that POV in the articles for the sake of reaching NPOV.Mababa 04:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A poll?

Shall we go on a poll? If yes, is now the right timing? — Instantnood 10:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood created his categories and started populating them without getting any concensus here.

Laws of mainland China has been put up for CfD. SchmuckyTheCat 23:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

May I add that he recently also created Category:Companies of mainland China, which I have also put up for review and deletion. Goodness knows how many more he has similarly done.--Huaiwei 03:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please start the poll if you would like to object the proposal. — Instantnood 08:57, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Important: Please see the Basics section above Note 1: before casting a vote. — Instantnood 01:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • As the one who initiated the discussion, I support the moves. — Instantnood 20:17, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I oppose all moves that mention Mainland China, unless it's a move away from it. -Kbdank71 21:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentatively support moves from PRC or China to Mainland China. (I might want to look at the moves case-by-case but I support the idea in general.) I'm beginning to like the term "Mainland China" more and more. For starters, it describes a very real political and economic entity. It is a natural category that arises when Chinese people conceive of Greater China. It is used extensively on Chinese Wikipedia. It is also wonderfully NPOV, and is used by people of every political opinion, because it separates out Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan without implying anything whatsoever about their status (note: you can't say the same thing about separating PRC and ROC.) Heck, Mainland China even fields its own Olympic team. Why is everyone so scared of this term?? -- ran (talk) 23:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
ran, you've pointed out things to me and we've agreed to move or rename articles, sometimes in entirely different ways than what was proposed (like the autonomous regions article). this mainland China business, while I respect your seeing it as a neutral term, is being extensively used to push POV, which I don't think you'd support. I think that's why you'd like to see it on a case-by-case basis. take a good look at how it's currently being abused before supporting it. SchmuckyTheCat 00:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've looked at how it's being "abused", and I conclude that it is not. In what ways do you think it's being abused? Do you mean the categories business above? -- ran (talk) 00:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
(response to Ran's message at 23:42, Mar 24, 2005) Don't worry. As long as the general directions is agreed we can do something like Template talk:Europe for each case. — Instantnood 00:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously oppose, as long as the term "Mainland China" is being used as thou it is a country. It is not, and even if it "sounds nice" or seems to be more "politically NPOV" (which I am beginning to notice has underlying POV here as far as Instantnood's agendas are concerned), it has not been popularly accepted as a proper terminology for any country. The only times it is useful is when there is a need to talk about the PRC minus HK and Macau. Thats it. I dont think it is being put down merely because people are "afraid of the term".--Huaiwei 00:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    No one is referring to Mainland China as a country. It simply functions like a country in many fields, and should be treated like one in those fields. No one is going to argue for, say, Foreign relations of Mainland China, which is simply absurd, but there's nothing wrong with Economy of mainland China. -- ran (talk) 00:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
As to no one: Instantnood is referring to mainland China as a country. And yes, the economy of mainland China is the economy of the People's Republic of China. HK isn't apart of that, yes, so the article needs to explain that. The usage "mainland China" defines the PRC for what it isn't, not for what it is. That isn't acceptable. SchmuckyTheCat 01:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have never do so. — Instantnood 01:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
And yes, the economy of mainland China is the economy of the People's Republic of China. -- Funny, then what was that weird money that I saw in Hong Kong? Didn't look like the Renminbi to me...
Instantnood is referring to Mainland China as a country in contexts where it functions like one. -- ran (talk) 01:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't even say that. I said it's just a matter of presentation, like metropolitan France on a list of countries by population or by area. — Instantnood 01:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
The HK economy is seperate, but the mainland economy is the economy of the nation and should be named as such. don't define the PRC by what it is not. And instantnood is referring to mainland China anywhere where the PRC and HK don't exactly intersect. That's wrong. It's defining the nation by it's sub-entities. SchmuckyTheCat 01:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you were right, in that case, any reference to the Netherlands, say, Economy of the Netherlands, could be wrong. The Netherlands is not a member of the UN, but the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is one sovereign state with three parts. The Netherlands articles says "the Netherlands" is the European part of the "Kingdom of the Netherlands". — Instantnood 01:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
funny then, how List_of_countries_by_population lists the PRC with a number, and HK with a number, and nobody is confused. France is listed as France, with a number, and a parenthetical remark to the term "metropolitan". but nobody is titling categories "metropolitan France". And yes, "The Netherlands" is just one of three parts in a federal system, a federal system that is so powerless it's usually not worth making the distinction. SchmuckyTheCat 01:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The PRC figure on the list of countries by population covers only mainland China. I am not changing it there at this moment because somebody will probably revert it. DOMs of France are integral part of France, with the same status as régions in metropolitan France, except New Caledonia. They are not separate trade entities/economies, and are part of the EU. The Kingdom of the Netherlands, although a loose federation, and the three parts theoretically equal, diplomatic relations and extradition are handled by the national government, which largely overlaps with the government of the Netherlands. — Instantnood 02:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the population page. A figure that claims to be of the "PRC" but does not include Hong Kong and Macau is false and misleading.
What are you people going to think of next? Merging Hong Kong, China at the 2004 Summer Olympics and China at the 2004 Summer Olympics? "Yes, I know they went as separate teams, but they're the same country!" -- ran (talk) 02:57, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • In Chinese, 大陆 is used mostly in contexts where one needs to make a specific distinction, not in all contexts. You wouldn't use it in an article about US-China relations, for instance... but you probably would use it in an article about cross-straits issues. It's a little bit like the lower 48 states or continental United States, used mostly when it's necessary to distinguish the US "mainland" from Alaska and Hawaii (for instance, shipping on purchases sometimes costs extra to Alaska and Hawaii). However, creating categories and articles that use "continental USA" everywhere instead of just USA or America would be very much a POV thing, and highly unnatural. An article that talked about tense relations between "Continental USA" and the European Union over the Iraq war would sound bizarre. "Continental USA" is not the name of a country, and neither is "Mainland China". -- Curps 00:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Alaska and Hawaii are not particularly different from the other 48 states of the United States. They do not participate independently in economic organizations; they do not have separate currencies; they do not have final adjudication; they do not have separate political parties from the 48 states; they do not allow organizations banned in the 48 states; they don't have separate customs authorities or tariffs; they do not have separate passports or require a visa for entry from the 48 states; they do not field their own Olympic teams.
    I agree that "Mainland China" is a term used only when a distinction needs to be made. But this situation arises much, much more often than in the case of the Contiguous United States. -- ran (talk) 00:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose As if all the above discussion saying "support" or "object" wasn't already a poll?
The times I think it is appropriate to use mainland china are rare. As a native english speaker, I think it sounds like drivel. Everyone in asia uses it however, so it's a valid term. My primary objection is that it is being used to define the PRC by sub-entities (HK and Macau) and other countries (Taiwan). If HK and Macau are the exception to some article or category with PRC in the title (and there are many exceptions), then short explanatory text, with a possible pointer to an article, should explain the exception. And it isn't NPOV, especially the way it is being used by some contributors. The way it is being used by some contributors here is very POV.
It is also not nearly clear and obvious, for instance, that a Taiwanese person saying "mainland" isn't including HK and Macau. It is a differentiating term for someone from HK, Macau, or Taiwan and has a definite use in HK, Macau, and Taiwan articles. It has little use in the context of the national PRC, which HK and Macau are part of. SchmuckyTheCat 00:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Which Taiwanese person is going to include Hong Kong when he/she says "Mainland China"? This sounds positively bizarre to me. (And I ask any Taiwanese person who knows better to correct me, if I'm wrong.) "Mainland China" (dalu) is a wonderfully natural term perfectly accepted in the Chinese-speaking world.-- ran (talk) 00:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
The use in Taiwan says nothing about HK or Macau. The Taiwanese simply use it to exclude "the other China" from themselves. SchmuckyTheCat 01:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am not from Taiwan and I did not stay there long enough. But as far as I know they don't call people from Hong Kong and Macao as people from Dàlù. — Instantnood
I challenge Schmucky to find one Taiwanese person who calls Cantonese-speaking, milktea-drinking, dimsum-munching, English-education-getting Hong Kongers "daluren". -- ran (talk) 01:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Even the MAC of ROC's Executive Yuan does use different laws or guidelines for mainland China and for Hong Kong and Macao. — Instantnood 01:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support in general, but there are some cases that are less clear. The term "Mainland China" is not meaningless; in fact, it may be one of the few terms that people from Hong Kong, Taibei, Beijing, etc. all agree on. (I'm also in favor of writing it as "Mainland China", with a capital M, to make it clear that it is a fairly precise technical term.) Let's try to split this along the "(one country), several systems" line: if there are several systems involved (e.g. economies), "Mainland China" can be used accurately and appropriately (economy of Mainland China vs. economy of Hong Kong). I'm less sure when there is a conflict between official names and their scope. For example, the Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China has "PRC" in its name, so it is tempting to categorize it as belonging to the PRC even though its jurisdiction does not include Hong Kong. I don't know what to make of such cases, since neither solution ("PRC" vs. "Mainland China") is completely satisfactory. --MarkSweep 01:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Important: Please see the Basics section above Note 1: before casting a vote. — Instantnood 01:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOv: China, Mainland China, PRC, ROC, SAR, etc.

(SchmuckyTheCat 03:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC))

A lot has been discussed here previously about NPOV. I think most people who have discussed NPOV previously have very valid ideas and proposals. Some movement was made about updating the naming conventions in February but it did not go forward to actually change what is there now. Since then several very disputed rename proposals occurred with the justification that the renames were aligned with the naming conventions.

We've got so much confusion in article layout and terminology that readers are confused. We can't come to consensus because everyone believes their views are being excluded. Minor edits are turning into flame wars. The term "China" has been cut up and re-named to so many different things that nobody can agree on what the generic term can mean. The current terminology is so NPOV about Hong Kong and Taiwan that it is extremely POV about the PRC.

If we all recognize that the PRC is not homogenous and allow terms like "China" to be broad and encompassing, we can stop having so many arguments, needless renames and category pigeonholing. This means the main articles may need some text about terminology and it certainly means minor articles need to place the terms in the correct context.

I think consensus could be reached on the following statements (my examples may or may not exist):

1. "China" and "Chinese" means the entire geographical entity, including the PRC, Taiwan (ROC), Hong Kong, the autonomous regions, and in a purely historical context other areas as well.

2. "China" and "Chinese" is an acceptable but not preferred, term when referring to the People's Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the name "China" (such as "Economy of China") can mention what it does not refer to (such as Taiwan or Macau) with a short text and link inside the article. Even better is a specific article for the other entity. Linking articles should provide the reader, by context, the NPOV of whether the linking article is about the PRC or something else. We should not rename articles from China to mainland China or to the People's Republic of China simply because of a naming convention.

3. "Taiwan" is an acceptable, but not preferred, term when referring to Taiwan or the Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the only the term Taiwan or ROC (such as ROC controlled islands) should explain it's context in the article. We do not need to rename articles to "Republic of China" simply because of a naming convention.

4. The primary articles on China and the People's Republic of China should mention that neither "China" nor the PRC is homogenous in laws, language, custom, etc. The extremely loose federated system for provincial control in the PRC allows a wide variety of systems to be practiced. Individual articles should detail how things are different.

5. The primary article on "China" should contain a short section titled "Mainland China". This short section should link to the main article "Mainland China". Most articles should link to "China#Mainland China" and not "Mainland China". The term "mainland China" is POV dependent and might mean several things, thus, it is up to the linking article to maintain context if it links to that term.

6. There is no entity called "mainland China". Unless necessary, articles and categories should not be titled with it. Articles categorized with "China" or "the People's Republic of China" that have some unique situation that differentiates them from the main body of "China" should list that situation in their own articles.

7. Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People's Republic of China. They are also special. They should not be categorized or treated as separate from China. Articles about Hong Kong and Macau have the responsibility to state why and how they are different from the People's Republic of China, not vice versa. The differentness of HK and Macau shouldn't be used to rename other Chinese entities.

[edit] Reasoning:

<--From re-reading previous discussions, I think these statements agree with the opinions put forth by Curps, Colipon, Mababa, jguk, Explorer CDT, and Suslovan. I think they mostly agree with Huaiwei, Jiang, ran, Mark Sweep, john k, and Penwhale. (I am not attempting to speak for any of you! I am trying to find where different people agree and associate.)-->

These are my reasons for approving the above statements. Your reasons might differ even if you also agree with the statements. To come to consensus, do not focus on my reasons. Come to your own conclusions and see if minor changes to your own POV or the statements above could bring you onboard to consensus.

My opinion on statement 2. Some have said that by letting "China" refer to the PRC that it is NPOV towards Taiwan/ROC, which still has a marginal number of people wishing to control all of China. And/or that Taiwan is also Chinese and that the term "China" (referring to the PRC) excludes Taiwan. This is not the case at all!

First, Wikipedia recognizes the status quo to the political situation. The status quo is that Taiwan does not control the geographical entity called China. It is NPOV to allow China to refer to the PRC in most contexts.

Second, the terms China and Chinese does not exclude Taiwan anymoreso than it excludes ex-patriate Chinese living in Brazil, or native HK residents who fled to Canada, or Americans whose relatives emigrated four generations ago. Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese. Third, it is strongly POV to allow these other entities (Taiwan, HK, etc) to define what China is and is not. The situations in Taiwan and HK need to be addressed in articles about Taiwan and HK. Fourth, we must take into account the intention of the thousands of other articles that sloppily link to "China". We aren't giving the PRC exclusive rights to the name China, but we are acknowledging and accommodating common use.

My opinion on Statement 3. Republic of China is what the government there prefers. We should respect that. However, insisting that "Republic of China" is more accurate or less POV than Taiwan is as POV as anything else. Some Taiwanese prefer Taiwan, some prefer ROC, some probably prefer Formosa or Chinese Taipei. The meaning of Taiwan geographically is one thing, but in our global culture, the word "Taiwan" has expanded to mean the political entity, the language, and the unique culture that has sprung up there. We should encourage broad and encompassing terms. We don't need to rename articles (unless there is a naming conflict, of course) if we can have more explanatory text in the articles.

My opinion on statement 4, 5, 6. This is a huge problem. Mainland China is being used as a substitute, and using the current naming conventions to justify it, for the People's Republic of China. This is horribly POV for Taiwan and HK centric articles (and wiki users) to be defining the PRC with such a term. The term defines what mainland China is not, but can't define what it is because what it is is context dependent. From Taiwan, mainland China is every part of China that isn't Taiwan. From Hong Kong, mainland China is all of China except the SAR.

It is unjustifiable for an article like "Laws of the People's Republic of China" to be in a category called "Mainland China" but not the category "People's Republic of China" simply because an HK centric user feels like the PRC term is exclusive of Hong Kongs special status, even though HK is clearly part of the PRC. An article "Laws of Hong Kong" is good. Renaming an article from "Laws of the PRC" to "Laws of Mainland China" based on the specialness of HK is horrible POV and horrible style - but that is what is happening.

Most links to "Mainland China" aren't meant to be links to an article defining an informal term, they do mean to refer to a subset of China. Which is why they should link to the term as a placeholder (China#Mainland) within the article that most readers actually want to read.

My opinion on statement 7. This has been a point of contention lately. The differentness of HK and Macau have been used to redefine terms that have nothing to do with HK and Macau in articles that don't refer to HK or Macau. Again, HK is not Shenzen is not Beijing is not Tibet. Many areas of China have unique situations, laws and culture. It would be an impossible task to edit all articles on China to explain how the concept differs in each province, AR, SEZ, or SAR.

Additionally, the specialness of HK and Macau have been used to justify HK and Macau as separate, even equal, entities to the PRC. The two SAR, of course, have many fundamental differences with the PRC. Those differences should be explained, not separated.

---

Again, these things are fixed by everyone recognizing that China is not homogenous. Laws, economics, food, language, (even the concept of sovereignty!) are all different across China. Beijing is not Shenzen is not Hong Kong is not Tibet. By making it clear to the reader that China is not homogenous and providing links we encourage readers to explore and learn. Or, we can continue to focus on our current efforts and fighting about minor categories, in which case we have lost the big picture and also confused our readers.

[edit] Discussion on #Political NPOV

[edit] Statement 1.

  • Agree -- "China" is often used to refer to the entire geographical entity and there is no problem with that. --Umofomia 07:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Umofomia is clearly speaking form a mainland China POV. You can even take a look at his user bio. Clearly biased.
Please sign your comment. A contributor from Taiwan can be equally familier with all those issues.
  • Disagreed China is China and Taiwan is Taiwan. China should not include Taiwan. Although China considers Taiwan to be a rogue territory, Taiwan has its own currency, flag, Olympic team, embasies in foreign countries, delegates to the World Trade Organization, military, etc. Taiwan's statistics are calculated separately from China, including but not limited to: population data, economic data as in GDP, demographic data, etc. CIA factbook even goes further and lists Taiwan as a separate country altogether.
  • Disagreed--If "China" as a geographical entity includes Taiwan based on history, please also include Mongolia, Korea and Vietnam. If Taiwan is included into China due to Culture, please include Singapore which shared the Chinese culture with a majority Chinese ethnic population exits in that country. Please also remember, before 1945, Taiwanese residents read and write in Japanese. Culture export is not a reason to include other area into a region; or half of the world belongs to north America. If "China" as a geographical entity includes Taiwan is based on political system, that is a POV. The political status of Taiwan is debated. ROC arguably do not have sovereignty over Taiwan. Taiwan and mainland China only overlaped within Qing dynasty versus China's 5000 years history. Qing even evaded and denied its responsibility for events occurred in Taiwan island. The current NPOV policy make deliberate ambiguity on the definition of "China". IMHO, it prevents endorsing which area is part of China and also safegaurds the possibility that some areas are not part of China. If we reallky want to define China, then we'd better define it as the least contentious definition: PRC=China, with its claim to other territory. In this way, we still do not exclude Taiwan as part of China, but also avoid endorsing it.Mababa 08:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The articles dealing with Chinese history and culture do mention areas that were under Chinese control or influence historically, including the ones you mentioned, so I don't see any problem with that. This geographical area has grown and shrunk with time and the articles on Chinese history make adequate explanations of where Chinese influence extended. I think it's useful that we can use the words "China" and "Chinese" to separate themselves from the political entities, so that we don't have to claim who has sovereignty over what. I think using PRC=China is actually rather the opposite of what you claim, since it explicitly endorses that the ROC does not exist, which is a POV statement. --Umofomia 08:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Slightly disagree. China as a geographical entity has disputed borders. Independence supporters would like to think that Taiwan is not part of China, geographic or otherwise. The term Chinese (if considered to be on par with 中華/華人 etc) can be used to refer to Taiwan, but should be avoided where possible. Politically, for the sake of listing, both the PRC and ROC can go under "China", but we can't define the ROC as the same as Taiwan in a geographical context.--Jiang 09:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think geographical entities can have disputed borders since it's all based on where influence extends to. It's the political entity that has disputed borders. A piece of land may be claimed politically by another state, but if there is Chinese influence over it, then I don't see a problem of having fall under the geographical entity. In addition, I'm not sure the about your assertion concerning Taiwanese independence supporters. Other than probably the radical fringes, they still agree that Taiwan falls under the geographical entity of China. It's the political region that they claim is not part of the political region of the PRC. There is a difference, and we should not confuse the two concepts. --Umofomia 09:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Umofomia, that's incorrect! Taiwan does not fall under the geographical entity of mainland China. That's why there's such a push for 2 terms - "mainland China" and "Taiwan"; clearly separate with different geographical boundaries.
  • Comment: Wikipedia has to stay NPOV. Geographically Wikipedia has to be careful in dealing with saying Taiwan is part of China the geographical region. See also my comment below. — Instantnood 10:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to urge Umofomia to glance over the statement (1) again. A geographical area is always an are with physical boundaries. The geographical area which has grown and shrunk as you proposed is actually the political entity of China and thus does not seem to conform with the common concept for a geographical area.
    The suggested definition of geographical China using the influence of China(a political entity) as a criteria defining the boarder is undoubtly subjective to one's political point of view and thus is POV by nature. I am not even sure what the criteria, the so called "influence", is. And it makes me wonder why Iraq is not part of geographical US. Looking at the 5000 years of the Chinese history, I do not see why Taiwan has the privilege to be part of China whereas Korea, Mongolia and Vietnam do not. As Jiang and Instantnood pointed out, a significant portion of Taiwnese do not like the idea to be considered as part of China, even geographically; and Wikipedia has the responsibility to make its content neutral. IMO, defining Taiwan to be part of the geographical China is not neutral.
    Last but not the least, tagging people with the radical label is certainly not neutral either. There is a Taiwan strait, a High Seas, separating the island from the mainland China. Perhaps, people in Taiwan would consider those who think Taiwan be part of geograpihcal China more radical than the other way. If we ever want to define the geographical entity, China, we should better come up with some more neutral criteria. However, I do concede that my initial proposal, taking PRC as geographical China, is not ideal. Let me modify my proposal: I suggest that we take mainland China as the definition of the geographical China. I think that would be the most neutral treatment for this.Mababa 05:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Out of all these places with Chinese cultural influence, such as Vietnam, Korea, and exclaves in North America and Europe, Taiwan is the only place fulfilling all of the following: i) with a population of Chinese descent majority, ii) has been ruled directly by China in some part of history (from the end of Tungning Kingdom until 1885), and iii) geographically continguous with the Chinese culture, i.e. not separated by another culture. — Instantnood 10:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • i)is disputable. There are arguments against Chinese immigration. Your statement could be true and could be untrue. Meanwhile, Singapore has a majority of Chinese people too. Please consider take Singapore into geographical China. ii)This argument is based on political POV. This argument is not neutral. I believe Vietnam was once a province of China as well. They used to read and write in Chinese too. iii) what is that argument? Taiwan, just like Korea has been ruled by Japan. Chinese culture was interrupted and eliminated to certain extent so that people can not speak Chinese. Lastly, why these criteria? Is it because that they fits Taiwan from some position? Or perhaps we can make some other criteria to pull Mongolia and Korea into China later after we put Taiwan into China? A geographical entity, in common sense, has a physical boarder. To call Taiwan part of China, geographically is a political POV. To call mainland China as geographical China on the other hand is neutral to the most of the people. I would like to see some criteria based on some simple understandale standard, not convoluted indirect and untenable arguments. Or perhaps you would like to see HK to be pulled out of geographical China since HK currently is not directly controlled by PRC according to your criteria ii?Mababa 05:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Umm. Taiwan is the only place that fulfils all the three criteria. Korea and Singapore do not. — Instantnood 08:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Ref Jiang. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement 2.

  • Hesitantly Agree -- Although the term "China" is often used to refer to the PRC only, it does do the reader a disservice by not adequately making it be known that there are political implications behind it. I would support it if a statement at the top of each article named "xxx of China" specifically states that it refers to the PRC and not to the ROC, et al. We should even make this statement a template so that it's consistent across all articles. --Umofomia 08:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Generally disagree. "China" is not acceptable when referring to the People's Republic of China because it either implies Taiwan is not part of China or is renegade. Neither is NPOV. I will take issue if people move away from the current naming, but I won't be deliberately moving articles like "economy of China" as part of an established series of articles. --Jiang 09:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Responses to reasoning given above: "Taiwan does not control the geographical entity called China" is POV and inaccurate because this implies that Taiwan is not part of the geographical entity of China. Having a "marginal number of people wishing to control all of China" is not relevant since as long as we see Taiwan as part of China, then China is divided. This is the state of affairs we are dealing with, not what things should be. Thereofore it is still POV to equate China=PRC. "Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese" cannot neutrally apply, especially if China=PRC because that means Taiwan is part of PRC. Overseas Chinese are not part of China... Regarding the statement, "it is strongly POV to allow these other entities (Taiwan, HK, etc) to define what China is and is not." we did not allow these entities to define China. Instead, we are looking at the current state of affairs from an objective standpoint. We are not using the same terms Taiwan or HK is using. "We aren't giving the PRC exclusive rights to the name China, but we are acknowledging and accommodating common use." Common use is POV and since this is in English, western-centric. Westerners are mostly ignorant of the situation. --Jiang 09:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comments: First, Wikipedia do not see "Taiwan as part of China, then China is divided". This position is a POV. In my opinion and also many other's position, Taiwan is NOT part of China, politically or geographically. This is the affairs between two states we are dealing with, not what things should be. Secondly, the statement "Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese" is such a strong POV that I do not understand how could anyone see it as neutral. ROC may be Chinese due to its historical root, Taiwan definitely is not. If Taiwan is Chinese, then the whole Asia is Chinese. Thirdly, Rejecting common usage is also an POV. A NPOV can only be reached when all POVs are presented. We are not superior or more clever than any ignorant westerners. Lastly, PRC's definition can not be taken as neutral because its definition extends over PRC controlled territory, and because it is opposed by other areas. The China can not be clearly defined is because the NPOV process in Wikipedia. As long as PRC's definition of China is opposed for one single day, we won't be able to take PRC's definition as neutral, not because we want to bias against PRC. It is because PRC's claim is biased against other area's position and against the reality.--Mababa 04:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Wikipedia should not show any inclination on whether Taiwan is or is not part of China (China here does not mean the PRC). Taking either side is already not NPOV. Everybody's view should be respected, but that does not mean it has to satisfy both sides or arguments.
        Nonetheless for disambiguation purposes sometimes slight implications of Taiwan being part of China is unavoidable, such as companies and airlines that many still bear the name China/Chinese/Chunghwa, and languauges and culture. Such way of presentation is merely for letting information flows more smoothly without barriers. It does not imply Taiwan is or is not part of China. — Instantnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree. "China" does not equal to "PRC", or the other way round. It is already a POV to say it's "acceptable thought not preferable". The rest of the problem is already solved by redirects, disambiguations and notices. See also my comment below. — Instantnood 10:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree in general. However, in a long article about the PRC, "Chinese" may be Ok as an abbreviated form when it's clear from context what is meant. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I can accept it as a reader, but not as an editor. — Instantnood 10:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed--Mababa 04:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement 3.

  • Hesitantly Agree -- it probably is a little silly renaming every article to "xxx of the Republic of China" and that most people would not readily know that the ROC refers to Taiwan, since many are ignorant of Chinese history. However, using Taiwan for the ROC also does the reader a disservice like I explain for statement 2. Again, perhaps we can have a templated statement at the top of any article named "xxx of Taiwan." --Umofomia 08:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed--The more inclusive the definition is, the more neutral the articles would be. Specifically rejecting the western common usage is surely a POV, with the caveat that usage may or may not be fact.Mababa 08:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Somewhat disagree. This is among the most contenous points in Taiwanese politics: seethis and this. There are some contexts where "Republic of China" is obivously appropriate eg "flag of the Republic of China" while other contexts where it is not "Mountains in the Republic of China". Use political terms for political topics and non-political terms from non-political topics. It just can't be defined as clear cut as no. 3--Jiang
    • Hey Jiang. It's not Taiwanese politics, but ROC politics or cross-strait politics. :-) By the way, there are some hills or peaks outside of Taiwan, am I right? Should it be done according to the current treatment to category:Airports of the Republic of China vs. Taiwan, and category:Townships in the Republic of China vs. Taiwan? — Instantnood 10:21, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree. "Taiwan" does not equal to "ROC", or the other way round. It is already a POV to say it's "acceptable thought not preferable". The rest of the problem is already solved by redirects, disambiguations and notices. See also my comment below. — Instantnood 10:05, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The current conventions are just fine. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed Taiwan can be called Taiwan without referring to Taiwan ROC. The current page lists Taiwan as island then points people to ROC.
  • Partially agree. I agree that a disclaimer needs to be inserted into the article's text especially when it is apparently not clear to most of our audiences concerning the whole "Taiwan" and "ROC" terminology issue. Where needed, articles which are deemed to be more appriopriate to use one term should have the other term created and redirected to it. I would, however, feel it is indeed necessary to rename some articles because they become factually inaccurate when taking into account the differing technical definitions.--Huaiwei 03:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree Taiwan page should state Taiwan instead of Taiwan the geographical island.

Anytime you search for Taiwan, it pulls up information on Taiwan the nation, not the physcial island. http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=Taiwan&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt

    • This is already a POV, although it;s prevalent. And please sign your comment. — Instantnood 16:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement 4.

  • Comment -- I don't exactly know what you mean here. In my opinion, the main article on China is fine as it is since it talks about things under the geographic and historical definition of China. The main article on the PRC is fine as well since it talks about the political entity. --Umofomia 08:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: China is not a "loosely federated" State. Laws, customs, immigration, demographcs, economy, etc., are the business of mainland authorities. The articles on these topics do not deal with Hong Kong and Macao. See also my comment below. — Instantnood 10:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree that neither the PRC nor Taiwan (nor China by anyone's definition) is culturally, linguistically, or ethnically homogeneous. But the PRC is, at least de iure, not an "extremely loose federated system". --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement 5.

  • Somewhat Disagree -- I typically don't like linking to subsections of articles since subsections can end up getting renamed or removed. Also, I don't think mainland China is POV at all because it refers to the geographical entity, which also happens to coincide with the areas administered by the PRC excluding HK and Macau. In my opinion, it's on the same level as calling the ROC Taiwan, which you seem to support. --Umofomia 08:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly Disagree Mainland China means areas under the control of the PRC except HK and Macau in almost all contexts. The ambiguity of the term is being exaggerated by you. It is commonly used in Chinese for neutrality sake. It is the least POV of the terms. PRC and ROC are very much more POV. --Jiang
  • Strongly disagree. I agree with Umofomia and Jiang. Furthermore Metropolitan France, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Lower 48 all have separate articles. See also my comment below. — Instantnood 10:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • good luck going to an American article and trying to pigeonhole national articles into "Category:Lower 48" SchmuckyTheCat 23:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That is a false analogy. The reason why the use of Mainland China is often justified is because there are actually different systems of laws in place with respect to the SARs. If Alaska and Hawaii were deemed special regions as well, then the analogy would apply, but they are not so the analogy doesn't apply. --Umofomia 23:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The term "Mainland China" (大陸) is not ambiguous. All sides more or less agree what it refers to, and all parties use it, e.g. the ROC has a Mainland Affairs Council, HK refers to cross-border exchanges with the Mainland, etc. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can anyone confirm without all doubt that when the Taiwanese use the term "Mainland China", they are always excluding the two SARs, and not the government based in Beijing? Secondly, can anyone also confirm, that all overseas Chinese around the World, including in Singapore where I come from, also use the term "Mainland China" in the same way?--Huaiwei 03:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • A search on Google on the Strait Times and Lianhe Zaobao (大陸)/(內地) already tells. — Instantnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and I suppose you didn't notice they almost always refer to the term "Mainland China" because they are talking about Hong Kong in the same sentence? That still isnt a demonstration of how Singaporeans would use the term "Mainland China" when not talking about Hong Kong or Taiwan. And btw, Its interesting that newspapers are being used as representative of usage on the street now. The SCMP spells Macau as Macau. Care to comment?--Huaiwei 11:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • But the Macanese government uses both, and it uses Macao more often than Macau.
    • This search gives 34 hits. Try it also with Zaobao. — Instantnood 12:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement 6.

  • Somewhat Disagree -- I don't see why you keep insisting that there is no such entity called "mainland China" (大陸). Even the PRC uses the term all the time when it wants to refer to itself excluding HK and Macau. However, I am in favor of using the term only to refer to the geographical entity rather than a political entity. I have no problem with articles entitled "xxx in Mainland China" if they talk about places or things situated in the PRC excluding HK and Macau. But if it refers to something that relates more to politics or has governmental influence, then I would be in favor of using "xxx in the People's Republic of China." --Umofomia 08:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if it involves the influence of the government, in most occasions "..of mainland China" is more appropriate. The ministry of transport or the ministry of finance, for instance, has no jurisdiction outside mainland China. Economy and demographics articles also involve statistics compiled by the government, but again, these statistics cover only mainland China. — Instantnood 10:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree The statement is just plain false. There is an entity called "mainland China" and it is commonly defined as the PRC minus the two SARs. Agree with Umofomia: use non-political terms for non-political contexts.--Jiang
  • Strongly disagree. Though I can't tell if "mainland China" qualifies to be fit into the definition of "entity", "mainland China" is a valid term in referring to PRC's territories minus Hong Kong and Macao. See also my comment and the materials produced by the PRC government below. — Instantnood 10:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Ref Jiang & Instantnood. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The term Mainland China is often used to keep China from being confused with Taiwan or Hong Kong. Mainland China is China and Taiwan is Taiwan.
  • Comment. I personally read this in quite a different light. I could tell he is suggesting this in light of the recent spate of categories in particular which were created which favours the use of "Mainland China" over the "People's Republic of China". I mentioned before that "Mainland China" as a country or a state does not exist. Since it does not exist, why is it being treated as thou it is a country? Why place categories of "XXX in Mainland China" together with other categories which are classified by countries? Does this not imply that "Mainland China" is a country? I do not find this acceptable, as I mentioned before earlier in this page. The usage of the term "Mainland China" cannot be compared with that of "China", the "People's Republic of China", "Taiwan", or the "Republic of China", because unlike any of these, has the term "Mainland China" commonly been treated or assumed to be in reference to a country (whether independent or otherwise), be it de facto or officially?--Huaiwei 03:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement 7.

  • Disagree -- HK and Macau are definitely part of the PRC, but because they are special, they often have radically different systems from the PRC, which justifies them having their own separate articles. I don't think making them separate is an implicit endorsement of them being equal political entities to the PRC. The same can apply to any place in China. For instance, if there is something in Shenzhen or Shanghai or whatever that has its own special situation different from the PRC that takes more than a few paragraphs to explain, then they also could have their own separate articles. Conversely, if there are things in HK or Macau that aren't too different or don't particularly have enough content to justify separate articles, then they could be merged into an article on the PRC, but trying to place everything under the umbrella of the PRC would make some rather unwieldy articles. --Umofomia 08:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree. "Mainland China" is on its own right on matters not related to diplomatic relations and national defence. See also my comment below. — Instantnood 10:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree to the extent that I can make sense of this. Ref Umofomia & Instantnood. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe what needs to be better emphasized in the above statement, is that while we do treat the two sars as thou they are "countries" in respect of their SARSSARs status, we must also be careful about not treating them as thou they are countries on the same level as the PRC. Look up most international organisations, and they often either indicate Hong Kong as "Hong Kong, China", or in my most recent research on aviation issues, I noticed Hong Kong and Macau were listed under the PRC under the name "Hong Kong SAR" and "Macau SAR", along with a disclaimer below which reads "For statistical purposes the data for China excludes the traffic for the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions (Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR), and that of the Taiwan province of China." Taiwan province of China?? Well...that was taken from the ICAO Journal! It seems that many of those international bodies, while listing Hong Kong's data separately, are also careful about indicating the fact that Hong Kong is there for statistical reasons rather than anything political, and that can actually be said too for many other publications as wide ranging as economics to sports. Therefore, I do not think the emphasize should be solely on "how different" the systems are....for just how different is different for it to be of note?--Huaiwei 03:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's somehow meaningless. You can always find out plenty of sources supporting your claims. The some thing can be done likewise for the opposite view. — Instantnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is the point. So long that we can find opposing views out there, who are we (and who are you) to come up with "conventions" which are contrary to half of those views?--Huaiwei 09:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's simply because the members of the organisation you looked at, the ICAO, are all sovereign States (list of members). The "S" in "States" is capitalised all the way through this page. Mainland authorities, however, do not add Hong Kong's figures into its own statistics. There must be some reasons for doing so. — Instantnood 10:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • And your point being? The figures are split, which you love to highlight. But then why do they write "Hong Kong SAR", and even list it under the PRC? And why insert that disclaimer? There must be a reason for that too, wont you think? And have you seen the physical journal to know what I am talking about?--Huaiwei 10:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's because all its members are sovereign States. Hong Kong is not a sovereign State and therefore couldn't be a member. The disclaimer makes it clearer that Hong Kong is not a member, although its statistics is presented separately. In this case, like the UN, PRC is the sole representative of China, and Taiwan is considered a province of it (and probably Quemoy and Matsu are considered part of its Fujian Province, and Taiping part of Hainan). — Instantnood 11:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and didn't you insisted any topic other than the military and (what was the other one?) should be treated as thou they are separate and distinct? If non-political issues are not the business of airlines and airports, may I know why some publications bother to present their statistics as such? The ICAO recognises that HK and Macau are parts of the PRC, and you say thats why they need that disclaimer. And you then saying that any other publication which fails to indicate as such as not recognising the SARs status of HK and Macau, and that they not part of the PRC?--Huaiwei 11:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Did I say the disclaimer is a must or else they will be failed to recognise Hong Kong and Macao as SARs, and as part of the PRC? ICAO membership is only open to sovereign States, and therefore they have to present China's (PRC's) statisitics in this way. The same would probably happen to other organisation open only to sovereign States. By the way would you mind telling how statistics of the Netherlands, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are presented? I don't have the physical journal on hand. — Instantnood 13:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • No you dont have to explicitly say it. You are implying it, because you are apparently constantly bringing up examples whereby Hong Kong was treated as thou it is a country as some sort of justification that Hong Kong IS a country at the same level as the PRC (or...Mainland China?). You argue that this publication lists them this way because it is only open to "sovereign States"...then why do they need to bother having that special treatment (especially concerning Taiwan) if that was supposed to be "apparent" as you say?--Huaiwei 14:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You might also be disappointed to note that the lising I have is for countries with at least 15 million tonne kilometre, so I only saw one entry called "Netherlands". Whether it has Aruba or anything else down below, I wont know. ;) --Huaiwei 14:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have never attempted to imply that, and I must apologise if I made you confused. Hong Kong is part of the PRC, and it is not a sovereign State, and "sovereign State" ≠ "country" (get some political science textbooks in case you can't tell their difference). I guess ICAO's position is like that of the UN that Taiwan is considered a province of the PRC. — Instantnood 14:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • You guessed? Oh I tot you are dead sure. Are you sure the UN considers Taiwan a province of China? If you are agreeable to the idea that the two SARs are a part of the PRC, may I understand why do you see a need to disassociate as much as possible all links between the two SARs with the rest of China, when sub-categories, sub-sections, and disclaimers would have done the trick? And may I know if Hong Kong is a sovereign state (i dont care how its capitalised) or a country, for it to that much of a concern over my understanding of their definitions?--Huaiwei 16:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I am sure that the UN considers Taiwan a province of the PRC, and you can verify on that. I have never attempted to refute the fact that two SARs are part of the PRC. The meanings of "state" and "State" are not the same. If you don't care about that and don't know the different between the meanings of "sovereign State" and "country", there's little for us to further the discussion. — Instantnood 16:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • On "Taiwan Province of China": #1 #2 #3, here you go. — Instantnood 17:40, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah...and you are saying the UN actually considers Taiwan as province of China because of how it refers to that territory? I hope you realise the fine difference between the two?--Huaiwei 17:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The UN and ICAO list sovereign States, whereas lists on Wikipedia are usually lists of countries. — Instantnood 18:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • The issue here, Instantnood, is that you consistently DELETE such disclaimers on Wikipedia when those disclaimers give service to the reader that the SAR notifying them of the political context. This gives the presentation that the SAR are equals, and also by that exclusion, you rename the PRC to "mainland China" in order to avoid that same disclaimer. SchmuckyTheCat 14:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree. The historical colonial backgrounds of the two regions are enough ground to set them apart from PRC regardless of the current situation. Kowloonese 21:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Views and alternative proposals

[edit] Instantnood's view

Everyone has already agreed upon that the term "China" refers to a geographical region, a vague concept that the limits vary to different people. What made "China" = "PRC" and "Taiwan" = "ROC" was a result of politics, and it is a POV. There was a long debate before the decision was made to place the articles about the governments at People's Republic of China and Republic of China, leaving China and Taiwan articles on geography. Using "China" as an encompassing term to refer to the "PRC" have been considered POV.

Either saying "Taiwan" as a geographical region is or is not part of the geographical region of "China" is, again, POV. It is also politics. On Wikipedia we have tried to be as NPOV as possible. However from culture point of view, Taiwanese culture, though with relatively greater influences from other sources, is part of Chinese culture. The Taiwanese or Min Nan language (or spoken variant) is a Han language, and Taiwanese cuisine falls into part of Chinese cuisines. History of Taiwan during the Koxinga era, between 1680 to 1895 (Qing rule) and from 1945 onwards (as a province of the ROC) is part of Chinese history.

The problem that many articles are linked to "China" meaning the PRC has temporarily been solved by the notice at the top of the China article, taking readers to the article People's Republic of China. In other cases, such as "..of China", are being solved by redirects or disambiguations (to "..of the PRC"/"..of mainland China").

Mainland China refers to PRC's territory excluding Hong Kong and Macao, with little dispute. The Mainland Affairs Commission of ROC's Executive Yuan does differentiate between mainland and Hong Kong + Macao. (see Talk:Mainland China#Scope of the term mainland China for details) It is neither an ROC- nor a Hong Kong-centric term, as reflected by the following materials produced by the PRC government.

  • Latest Satistics on SARS on Mainland China (15/04/2003) [5]
  • Education System in Mainland China [6]
  • Regulations of the State Council for Encouragement of Investment by Overseas Chinese and Compatriots from Hong Kong and Macao [7]
  • Reform gradualism and evolution of exchange rate regime in Mainland China (a speech delievered by the governor of the People's Bank of China) (doc format) [8]

When it has come to a decision among the terms "China", "PRC" or "mainland China"; "Taiwan" or "ROC, a simple rule of thumb, as I have mentioned here and elsewhere, is to depend on the scopes of the content of the articles or the categories. It doesn't matter whether it involves the government(s) or not.

An article about the entirety of territories under PRC's control, i.e. mainland China (22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions and 4 municipalities), Hong Kong and Macao included, should be titled ".. of the People's Republic of China". An article about mainland China, i.e. with Hong Kong and Macao excluded, should be titled ".. of mainland China".

An article about the entirety of territories under ROC's control, i.e. the island of Taiwan (including offshore islands such as Green Island and Orchid Island), Pescadores, Pratas, Matsu, Kinmen, Wuchiu, etc., should be titled ".. of the Republic of China". An article about Taiwan (i.e. Taiwan island plus Pescadores, with Pescadores, Pratas, Matsu, Kinmen, Wuchiu, etc. excluded) should be titled ".. of Taiwan".

Redirects and disambiguation are, very often, necessary to avoid making less well-informed readers in trouble.

Although "mainland China", "Taiwan", "Hong Kong" and "Macau" are not sovereign states, they are very often listed or categorised along with other countries, on lists of countries. The same have been done for dependent territories, and a handful of subnational entities (which are mostly French DOMs). — Instantnood 08:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

My response to a few of SchmuckyTheCat's comments

" 7. Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People's Republic of China. They are also special. They should not be categorized or treated as separate from China. Articles about Hong Kong and Macau have the responsibility to state why and how they are different from the People's Republic of China, not vice versa. The differentness of HK and Macau shouldn't be used to rename other Chinese entities. "

He suggested Hong Kong and Macau are parts of the PRC, which is a status quo that everybody has to agreed with. But I guess she/he is referring to the differences between Hong Kong and Macau, and mainland China, rather than Hong Kong and Macau, and PRC.

" 4. The primary articles on China and the People's Republic of China should mention that neither "China" nor the PRC is homogenous in laws, language, custom, etc. The extremely loose federated system for provincial control in the PRC allows a wide variety of systems to be practiced. Individual articles should detail how things are different. "

From a political science point of view, the PRC is not a loose federation, but a unitary State. Typical example of federations include Switzerland, Germany, Canada and the United States.

" My opinion on statement 2. ... First, Wikipedia recognizes the status quo to the political situation. The status quo is that Taiwan does not control the geographical entity called China. It is NPOV to allow China to refer to the PRC in most contexts. ... Fourth, we must take into account the intention of the thousands of other articles that sloppily link to "China". We aren't giving the PRC exclusive rights to the name China, but we are acknowledging and accommodating common use. "

Like what I have already mentioned, it is a POV to say either "Taiwan" is or is not part of "China" the geographical region.

The common use can be solved by redirects and disambiguations, as well as by the notices at the top of articles.

" My opinion on Statement 3. Republic of China is what the government there prefers. We should respect that. However, insisting that "Republic of China" is more accurate or less POV than Taiwan is as POV as anything else. Some Taiwanese prefer Taiwan, some prefer ROC, some probably prefer Formosa or Chinese Taipei. The meaning of Taiwan geographically is one thing, but in our global culture, the word "Taiwan" has expanded to mean the political entity, the language, and the unique culture that has sprung up there. We should encourage broad and encompassing terms. We don't need to rename articles (unless there is a naming conflict, of course) if we can have more explanatory text in the articles. "

Simple examples, History of Taiwan, Taiwanese cuisine or Culture of Taiwan has nothing to do with Quemoy (Kinmen) and Matsu. Differentiating "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" has the merit of solving many problems in proper titling, to tell the scope of the content of articles and categories.

" My opinion on statement 4, 5, 6. This is a huge problem. Mainland China is being used as a substitute, and using the current naming conventions to justify it, for the People's Republic of China. This is horribly POV for Taiwan and HK centric articles (and wiki users) to be defining the PRC with such a term. The term defines what mainland China is not, but can't define what it is because what it is is context dependent. From Taiwan, mainland China is every part of China that isn't Taiwan. From Hong Kong, mainland China is all of China except the SAR. "

See the materials by the PRC that I have quoted above. "Mainland China" is not an ROC- or Hong Kong-centric term. The ROC does differentiate between Hong Kong and Macau from the mainland. In Hong Kong and Macau the term "mainland China" does not cover ROC's territory.

"Mainland China" is not used as a substitute to "PRC". Its use depends on situation, and the scope of the content of an article or a category. Saying some users are using it as a substitute reveals that one is not well-informed with the issue. — Instantnood 08:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

My position

I agree with the current set of naming conventions. If modification is necessary, I would agree with slight clarifications, rather than changing the meanings. — Instantnood 08:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: History of Taiwan during the Koxinga era is diputable out side of the Chinese history. It is also a POV to call Taiwan not to be a sovereignty state but is at the level of the HK, Macuo. Other than that , I do not have much opinion. I also appreciate your thoughtful note separating ROC from Taiwan. :) Mababa 05:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are quite right. It was part of Taiwanese history. It was the history of Han settlers on Taiwan. But saying it's Chinese history could be disputable.
The status quo is that Taiwan is not a sovereign State, but a main part of territories administered by the ROC, which is a regime/government. Thanks for your appreciation. It has had more than enough battles around. — Instantnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Penwhale's Thoughts

I'll skip the quoting part, since I don't want to clutter the discussion/idea flows.

Regarding statement #1, I hesitantly stay neutral on the geographical half, and needs to comment on the historical half. Geographically, China would not include Taiwan. Historically, yes, you can say Chinese history, but that doesn't cover those that lived in Taiwan originally. (You know, American History don't exactly cover Native Americans)

Regarding statement #2, it is true that it's acceptable but not preferred, but we still have to follow a guideline. If something needs to be renamed, it should. Same with #3.

Regarding statement #4, correctly placing the articles could prevent the mix-up.

Regarding statement #5, I would -not- make such a section. If I do, it would be to inform that PRC contains mainland China as well as the two SARs.

Regarding statement #6, "mainland China" is considered a geographical location, which is PRC subtracting Tibet, HK, and Macau. I would maintain this view, like a number of people have insisted.

Regarding statement #7, yes. The problem is that I'd rather be exact on what I'm saying. If it's, say, culture, then "mainland China" -might- suffice. Like I pointed out right above, "mainland China is a geographical locale, and should be kept where applicable. Penwhale 06:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

At present this convention breaches the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) and this is unacceptable. It says that Wikipedia treats Taiwan as a sovereign state, and then implies that the sovereign state should be called "Republic of China". First, as a straightforward matter of fact, Taiwan is not a sovereign state - and nobody recognises it as such. Wikipedia should report, not invent a fiction here.

I have to strongly object to saying that no one recognizes Taiwan. That's just false and I doubt that you really believe that, which just angers me that you would say something you know is false. See comment posted at bottom about list of embassies around the world.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, the term "Republic of China" is not only confusing, but is also only a term used by the Taiwanese. The Chinese government in Beijing has made it clear that it views Taiwan to be a renegate province. It has recently passed an anti-secession law, is planning military rehearsals on an invasion of Taiwan with Russia, and does not recognise that there is such a thing as the "Republic of China". We really can't take the Taiwanese side on this. Especially as there is no need as everybody in real life appears willing to use the term "Taiwan" instead.

Are you going to buy the PRC party line or not? PRC says it is not planning invasion exercises.
The anti-seccession law is opposed by major powers of the world, most importantly, the United States. So let's not say that that law has any real meaning on the international level.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I therefore propose that we note the political situation and comment that Wikipedia takes no side in this dispute. Then that we prefer the term "Taiwan" as all sides of the dispute are ok with using that term - which seems to be the best approach to getting NPOV, jguk 12:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is a sovereign state currently called ROC (Taiwan). It may or may not be equivalent to ROC (NPOV means representing both views, not throwing away the ones you don't like).
Strongly disagree. Even if RoC isn't a sovereign state, it existed since 1912, it hasn't been removed from the planet of earth. You still need to note their existence. Penwhale 12:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let's not call either of them sovereign States. They are two regimes, and technically they are still at war, as there was neither armistice nor cease fire agreement.
Do you really believe they are at war? America hasn't declared war since Korean War and there was Vietnam, two Gulf Wars, many smaller wars. Think about it like this. If Taiwan and China went to war tomorrow, would historians talk about a new war or a 60 year old war? I'm sure there's a linkage, but geez, let's not give so much authority to actual declarations. For something like war, actions speak loud and clear.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Republic of China has full diplomatic relations with 25 sovereign States (see Foreign relations of the Republic of China). The others usually has at least some form of contacts with the Taipei government. Taipei Representive Offices all around the world function as de facto embassies or consulates.
The territories that the ROC administers = Taiwan plus something, i.e. the ROC ≠ Taiwan. (and those something are not covered by the Taiwan Relations Act.) — Instantnood 12:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • you don't support calling the PRC sovereign? (added by SchmuckyTheCat at 13:16, Mar 19, 2005)
As pointed out before, the term "Taiwan" is far from being NPOV in political discussions. Much of the political debate is precisely about whether "ROC"="Taiwan". Currently all sides agree that this equality does not hold. It's only the Western media that are being sloppy here. --MarkSweep 21:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also Strongly disagree First and foremost, the Taiwan page is currently slanted towards China's view (PRC view), where Taiwan is simply an island whose authority is under dispute. Although China considers Taiwan to be a rogue territory, Taiwan has its own currency, flag, Olympic team, embasies in foreign countries, delegates to the World Trade Organization, military, etc. Taiwan's statistics are calculated separately from China, including but not limited to: population data, economic data as in GDP, demographic data, etc. CIA factbook even goes further and lists Taiwan as a separate country altogether. I agree that the dispute should be included somewhere in the page, but having Taiwan listed as an island with references to both PRC and ROC causes confusion. Taiwan should be referred to simply as "Taiwan", not "Taiwan the geographical location please see ROC". That is absurd. (by 205.174.8.4 at 21:56, Mar 22, 2005)
Hey wait. Those are ROC statistics, not statistics on Taiwan. Taiwan ≠ ROC even to the government in Taipei. Please sign your comment. — Instantnood 09:38, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, those are TAIWAN statistics. See CIA factbook. Pull up a country list and then click on the country called Tawian, and you will see those statistics.
No. They are ROC statistics. For political reasons the United States can't use ROC, and therefore they have to use "Taiwan" in its place. — Instantnood 16:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
You're sort of agreeing to DISAGREE. If using ROC stems from a slanted POV, then "Taiwan would be more NPOV".
no, the US has to follow the PRC's POV since it recognized the people's republic. This sacrifices accuracy, since the factbook states Taiwan's "official name" as "none". --Jiang 02:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let me remind readers and other contributers that the United States has a One-China policy defined by itself, not PRC. The definition of this policy adopted by the US overlaps the PRC's policy but the two are not exactly the same. This nuance is discernable and is something has to be pointed out. The United States is not a dependency of the PRC and does not follow PRC's policy. It is not precise to state "the US has to follow the PRC's POV" as Jiang just phrased.--Mababa 02:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I want to also point out that the United States statement when it reestablished diplomatic relations with China is: "The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." Read carefully. It says, PRC has a view and we acknowledge it. We don't agree, we don't disagree, we don't say anything. This is a major backing off from the meeting from Nixon's visit prior to the statment made at the time of reestablishing diplomatic relations. George Bush has said he will do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan. Do you think US accepts China's POV? So, again, Jiang, you can't pass off China's POV as the US's.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We clearly stated that Taiwan is governmened by a political entity called the Republic of China. This is not the PRC's POV, which states that the ROC no longer exists. Instead, we've portrayed the de facto situation and tried to bring in the different viewpoints. It is the Republic of China that has its own currency, flag, Olympic team, embassies in foreign countries, delegates to the World Trade Organization, military, etc. The flag of the Republic of China is being used. Extreme supporters of independence would like to dispute the fact that it is the flag of Taiwan. The currency is issued by the Central Bank of China, a corporation owned by the ROC government. It is obviously controversial to equate the ROC with Taiwan. --Jiang 02:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One thing I see Jiang arguing that is really fallacious is that recognizing ROC is not the PRC's POV so it must be NPOV. Jiang, kindly review false dilemma to clear up the confusion. And the other thing that he does a lot of is he is interested in only the signs--the flags, the names, the pictures on the currency. If you have even the most naive intuitive theory of language, you recognize there are two things--there are tokens and there are objects that those tokens refer to. You cannot outright say the ROC continues to exist just because something today bears its name. You need to establish that there's a material unity. Native democracy versus authoritarian government run by mainlanders versus authoritarian government on China with lots of warlords and wars with both CCP and Japan? What's the same about them?--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is difficult to define who is extreme and who is not. For example, in many Taiwanese's opinion, they would define the Chinese nationalism supporters to be more extreme. I really wish other Wikipedians can avoid using judgemental and denegrading words like this. It has been frustrating to see so many Wikipedians carry this opionated position in this talk page. That being said, it IS controversial to equate the two and I believe that we should find a neutral way to present this prevalent opinion without stating this position as truth.--Mababa 02:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Extremism can be visualized on a spectrum. We have strongly unificationist (ie reunify immediately) on one end and strongly independencist (ie declare independence immediately) on the other. These encase the center (ie uphold the status quo) so as the outer edges of the spectrum, they are by definition extremes. Chen Shui-bian, though he leans more towards independence, he is not as extreme as LTH because unlike Lee, he is promoting the status quo and promising not to declare independence. I don't think this is hard to dispute. --Jiang 05:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Extremism for sure is definitely not a neutral and flattering vocabulary. I don't think this is hard to dispute, either. If labeling politicians like Lee as extremists is tolerated in Wikipedia, then we should also make an equal effort actively labeling Chinese Unification and Chinese nationalism supporters (either on PRC or ROC) as extermists as well. Can we start to call unification supporters as China Fighters or Unification Fighters? People on both ends of the spectrum are probably either more liberal or conservative, but calling them extremists would be judgemental in my opinion. I was just thinking perhaps we should have a Chinese Naming convention on defining extremism to make sure that only people supporting status quo are not called extremist.Mababa 06:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think both independence and unificationist can be called extremists, at least from what I gather in the papers, like what they say about 急統/急獨 Wareware 07:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you asked the question, what if Taiwan was guaranteed peace after declaring independence, how many people would support, you would have a great majority of Taiwanese saying yes. Now putting a gun to their heads (100 new missiles each year, advanced weapons that the EU desparately wants to sell to China), many Taiwanese, for practical purposes, do not want to declare independence openly. This is all easily obtained knowledge and it is POV to call Taiwanese that want to declare independence extreme.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually Jiang, WTO's directory lists that the delegates are from "Taiwan", not "ROC". Additionally, the currency for Taiwan used internationally is Taiwan Dollar (TWD), and not ROC Dollar. Please get your facts straight before relaying incorrect information.
Please look up its full title. It's Taiwan plus something, and two of those three something are not part of Taiwan. Quemoy and Matsu used to have their own currencies until recently (and Tachen between 1949 to 1955). The Taiwan Relations Act of the US does not apply to Quemoy and Matsu, which are under ROC's administration. The ROC offices in the US are Taipei Representative Offices, instead of embassies and consulates-general. — Instantnood 17:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the US threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons if the PRC attempted to take Quemoy and Matsu. That's changed though just as the currencies have changed. Obviously nuclear weapons are now out of the question, but taking over Quemoy or Matsu would be an act of war that no one knows how Taiwan or the US would react to. Also read about the opinions of Quemoy and Matsu. Taiwanese indepence supporters had previously thought that they could be returned to China in return for guarantees of peace, but the people on those islands have refused. They participate in national elections. They want to be a part of Taiwan.--160.39.195.88 05:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As a side note, a list of Tawianese embassies can be found here http://www.embassiesabroad.com/embassy.cfm?embassy=abroad&countryID=86

Please note that jguk has put this issue forward to Wikipedia:Village pump. — Instantnood 13:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Due to these objections, I have reworded the text while keeping the existing policy in tact. Statements such as "Wikipedia treats..." and "Wikipedia is silent..." aren't really helpful here as we are trying to direct editors on what terms to use. This is more of a guide than a case study of community practices. Please comment on any problems with the changes.--Jiang 09:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is the word "Taiwan" politically charged? Using that word seems to be one of the few things both sides agree on, jguk 10:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That depends on the context. "Taiwan" as a geographical term (as opposed to, say, "Formosa") is fine and pretty much unobjectionable. As a political term (as opposed to "ROC") it's often problematic, strongly POV, or flat out wrong (e.g. "The President of Taiwan" is grossly misleading/POV). --MarkSweep 19:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The term itself isnt charged, but using it syonymously with the Republic of China is: [9] [10]. --Jiang 01:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

is there still a npov dispute here? the text has since been edited--Jiang 14:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] from VP

[edit] NPOV → China

Why doesn't the NPOV policy apply to Taiwan. Apparently Wikipedia treats Taiwan as a sovereign state called the Republic of China? Beijing totally refutes this and no-one officially on the world stage recognises the "Republic of China". Not even Taiwan recognises itself as independent. Surely we have to change to refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan" and to accept that Taiwan is not sovereign? I though the NPOV policy was sacrosanct, jguk 12:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could you please spare some time and read all these articles before speaking around? — Instantnood 13:07, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
I have - and it is unreasonable for WP to take the view that there is a sovereign state based in Taipei called the Republic of China when we all know, and have been recently reminded by the news, that Beijing completely opposes that position. That is the problem, jguk 13:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But that's just one POV. There is another, equally long held POV that says that the Republic of China encompasses all of Mainland China, Mongolia, Taiwan, etc., its provisional capital is Taipei, and it's just waiting for a good opportunity to liberate the Mainland from Communist rule. That's clearly equally far into the realm of fantasy as the POV espoused by the PRC. The fact is that there are territories that are clearly under ROC control, several countries entertain diplomatic relations with the ROC, the ROC and the PRC both participate in international competitions (sports etc., though under different names), etc. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) merely state that the political entities should be referred to as the "People's Republic of China" on the one hand, and as the "Republic of China" on the other, and that for political purposes neither should be equated with "China" or "Taiwan". If and when appropriate, individual articles can and should mention that there are several competing PsOV and explain them in all relevant detail. The current naming conventions merely try to stick to the pieces that reasonable people should be able to agree on: there is a sovereign political entity known as the PRC and there is a sovereign political entity known as the ROC. The latter is trickier, because Western mass media often refer to the ROC incorrectly as "Taiwan", which is POV, because the question whether ROC=Taiwan is extremely contentious, even among ROC citizens. Wikipedia need not and should not get involved in this debate, which is precisely what the current naming conventions try to accomplish. --MarkSweep 20:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Taiwan IS a sovereign state. Taiwan is the place. ROC is the current regime. Some Taiwanese believe that ROC is illegitimate. THat has nothing to do with Taiwan being the place where the ROC rules. But who believes ROC rules China/Mongolia? You can't say Taiwan does. They only don't say that they don't because PRC, even though they say the whole ROC business is illegitimate anyways, threaten war. How do you accept "truths" that are under the pressure of violence?
So you consider Beijing's POV = NPOV? — Instantnood 13:19, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that having a WP policy that is totally contradictory to Beijing's stance is POV. One completely accepting Beijing's stance would also be POV. It's best to have a convention to use terms on which the main sides agree. They all agree that (at present) Taiwan is not independent of China. They also all use the term "Taiwan" as a short-hand for territory that is currently controlled by Taipei. So it'd be best to adopt this approach rather than treating Taiwan as a separate sovereign state and referring to the "Republic of China" or "Cross-Straits", jguk 13:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment Something that the posters on NC:Chinese keep forgetting is that an NPOV isn't no POV. A neutral POV explains controversies, it doesn't try to bury them by creating and vigorously reinforcing "Naming Conventions". This goes to the heart of the entire current NPOV section on everything China. It's ridiculous to be creating categories and shoving articles around to non-existent entities (Mainland China) because it doesn't agree with everyone's POV about what "China" is. So long as everyone in Taiwan, HK and Macau get their way, "China" doesn't exist. SchmuckyTheCat 14:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" isn't a non-existent entity. It's a neutral term that everyone uses to refer to PRC minus HK and Macau.
But I agree with everything else you said. -- ran (talk) 16:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not non-existent as a phrase, but it's not a political, geographical, cultural or language entity. It's an informal phrase that could be avoided 90% of the time it's used here. Some users also abuse it to advance their agenda of minimizing PRC references which is why I oppose it's widespread usage. SchmuckyTheCat 22:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

it is unreasonable for WP to take the view that there is a sovereign state based in Taipei called the Republic of China -- this is precisely the view of the ROC itself. It calls itself the "Republic of China", and its provisional capital is Taipei.

Apparently Wikipedia treats Taiwan as a sovereign state called the Republic of China? -- no, Wikipedia currently treats the ROC as a government / regime that controls Taiwan and a few other islands. Similarly the PRC is a government / regime that controls Mainland China, HK, and Macau. -- ran (talk) 17:00, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ran. I'd even call Taiwan sovereign but only on the territory it controls. My problem is using that status to redefine the PRC. SchmuckyTheCat 22:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
May I refer you to the naming convention policy that states "Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China"? jguk 17:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Regime or government would perhaps be a better word to sovereign State. I agree some of the sentences of the #Political NPOV needs some clarifications. Nonetheless both the ROC and the PRC are treated as regimes/governments is a shared view among many users, such as MarkSweep, Jiang, Ran, Penwhale and me. — Instantnood 17:49, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I propose that all further discussion take place here in order to avoid fragmentation. Let me briefly state here that the person who started this debate on the Pump is, IMHO, simply mistaken both about the intent behind the naming conventions and about the real world situation. --MarkSweep 20:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the noteworthy goal of putting it on the pump is to get people who don't already have a dog in the fight to come in and put forth an opinion. NC:Chinese has been having this stalemated discussion for months. SchmuckyTheCat 22:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't even have a dog. Despite my pinyin online handle, I am not Chinese at all, merely a China buff who spent a few years there. I have no authority. Perhaps my opinion will carry some weight even so (but I'd rather have a black Lab).
Pretty much all Chinese agree "There is only one China." But what do they mean?
When I say "San Jose", sometimes I mean the city in which I live -- that is, the land within the official city limits and every Lexus, palm tree, down-and-out junkie ex-systems analyst and Starbucks upon that land. Sometimes I mean the geographic area variously termed "Silicon Valley", "Santa Clara Valley", "Santa Clara County", or "South Bay Area". Sometimes I mean the computer/microelectronics industry. Sometimes I mean the political entity goofing off inside City Hall, with tentacles throughout the state: municipal guvmint. In some conversations, I might be referring exclusively to the San Jose Police Department ("There was two cars at the scene from Sunnyvale before San Jose got there.") "San Jose" means nothing in itself; it must be namespaced before it acquires even a roughly agreed-upon meaning. In normal conversation, that happens automatically, in context. But this is not a normal conversation.
Chinese people do not have a "Western" sense of the passage of time. I doubt I could find two American highschoolers to tell me the significance of the Whiskey Rebellion, and that was a definitive moment in American history, with lasting effects on the balance of power between State and Federal guvmint, only about 200 years ago. Hey, I wonder how many could write more than a sentence out of their own heads on the Vietnam War. Chinese highschoolers can name every dynasty for thousands of years, back to when they were a small tribe scratching in yellow mud, and tell you about quite a few wars. American businessmen plan, at most, 5 years into the future; Chinese plan 100 years ahead.
So far as many Chinese are concerned, 1949 was yesterday. Nothing has been settled in the last 50 years. An American might think that if he saw somebody steal a kid's bike, he could run down the street and grab the bike back -- but if he saw that same bike in a thrift store 10 years later, it would just be too late to recover the stolen property. From the Chinese POV, though, it's never too late -- or at least, it's not too late yet.
I think it's absurd to say that there is only one China, when there are four or five San Jose's (not including anything in Puerto Rico). There's China, the People's Republic; China, the Republic of; China, the geographical area including all of the mainland, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and a bunch of other islands, and maybe Singapore, too. There are cultural groups, language groups, ethnic groups. Why, most Han people don't think anyone else is Chinese.
Now, this whole fuss began about 150 years ago, when the Empire (the government) started crumbling under the influence of the British mercantile invasion; by 1912 it was gone. Different groups and individuals began to grab power, and China entered another period of fragmentation. The Japanese did their best to stir the pot and various "Western" powers put in their oars, too. When the dust settled -- after 100 years of war and upheaval -- there were essentially five independent Chinese political entities: PRC, ROC, HK, Macau, and Singapore.
  • Taking the last first, although Singapore is largely Chinese, nobody has ever to my knowledge tried to call it China or part of China. I don't know why.
  • Hong Kong was and is an abnormal political entity. It has always functioned with a great deal of autonomy -- from London by reason of distance, from Beijing by reason of sheer stubbornness. But it has never thought of itself as an independent nation, despite having its own (import/export) customs, immigration, currency, laws, police, languages, and culture. Beats me.
  • Macau was and is an even more abnormal entity than HK. It is very small; the natives say, "There is only one street." I hope I can say frankly, without offense to anyone, that Macau is basically a large casino, whorehouse, and drug distribution center -- the Las Vegas of Asia. It owes its autonomy not so much to strength, but to the fact that all parties, from the Portugeuse to the carpetbaggers of Zhuhai to the Mandarins of Beijing, find it a convenient place for rest and relaxation; nobody wants to take responsibility for it, or be embarassed by failure to do so. It also has its own customs, immigration, currency, laws, police, languages, and culture.
  • The government now based in Beijing, calling itself the People's Republic, exercises effective control over a very large area. Toward the western borders, this control is a bit shaky, but less so than it might be. It is extending control over HK and Macau, but I like to say this is like a man playing three hands at a blackjack table. They are still operated independently.
  • When the ROC government fled to the island of Taiwan, the PRC was pretty tired of a three-cornered war that had gone on for 30 years. Even so, they might have pursued to Taiwan, except that the good old US of A put its oar in, threatening to defend Taiwan against the mainlanders. The PRC still exercises no real control over Taiwan, but refuses to give up its claim to it. Chinese are patient people; perhaps the day will come when the US is no longer willing to threaten war to defend Taiwan, and the ROC will be forced to negotiate with the PRC.
  • Meanwhile, the ROC continues to maintain that it is the only legitimate government of all of China, presumably including HK and Macau. The most neutral comment I can make on this is that it doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence.
I could go into a discussion of the other Chinas -- the cultural, the linguistic -- but debate really only rages over the political question. To recap, there are two utterly incompatible statements asserted by two different groups, and a third statement upon which they both agree:
(1) PRC is the government of all China.
-- or --
(2) ROC is the government of all China.
-- and either way --
  • There is only one China, including everything I've mentioned except Singapore.
This last statement is not contested by any official body, but I find it patent nonsense in this political context. It may be valid in other contexts, but to me, it is obvious that there are four, possibly five, Chinas (Chinese nations de facto).
Anyway, a whole bunch of terminology depends from each statement (1) and (2). There is no middle ground; over time, every possible name for every possible Chinese thing has been co-opted into one camp or the other.
I assert that Wikipedia's NPOV policy in this case simply forbids anyone, at any time, in any place, from editing, criticizing, or discussing any term applied to the whole of China, any part of China, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Kowloon, Macau, Taiwan, or the Sprately Islands. Whoever called it whatever first, that's it. — Xiong (talk) 01:31, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the point you're making here. The historical facts and the situation (both de facto and de iure) are not under dispute, as far as I can tell. The issue is mostly one of terminology, especially as it applies to article names. Naming an article can easily turn into an epic battle: in the end, there can be only one name (there can be many redirects, though). The question in particular is whether articles that are primarily about the current Republic of China should be renamed to be about "Taiwan", and whether referring to the "Republic of China" violates the NPOV policy (since the very existence of the ROC runs counter to the POV put forward by the PRC). The current Naming Conventions state that "ROC" is the best term to use in political contexts; many editors agree with it, a few disagree. The main arguments have been set out before on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), and I won't repeat them here. I'll simply encourage you to visit that talk page, read up on the prior discussion, and perhaps join the merry crowd. --MarkSweep 19:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is some topic being long disputed. The reason we do not take PRC's view point as neutral point of view is because this encyclopedia is not based in Beiging. We reach a neutral point by reflecting the reality while keep all the POVs into the article. Whether Taiwan is neutral or not based on one's point of view. However, the reality is that PRC does not control Taiwan/ROC. Similarly, the U.S. does not recognize Cuba and this fact does not make Cuba less sovereign than other nations. We treat Taiwan/ROC as a sovereign country because it function like a sovereign country, not because it is a sovereign country in everyone's eye on this earth. We choose a treatment not to against PRC's POV but a treatment which is closest to the reality. When PLA start to patrol over the Taiwan coast daily, we will stop treating ROC as a sovereign country. Before that, I suggest we reflect the reality.

I do see the problem of the definition of China where the definition is affected by the regions outside of the mainland China. However, this is really the by-product of the NPOV policy in Wikipedia. As long as Chinese people makes assertions extending beyond current PRC's control and also as long as those being claimed regions objects the definition from PRC's view point, a clear cut definition of China, either geographically or politically, would always being occluded for the sake of NPOV not to biasing against those diagree with the PRC difinition. Again, this is being done to reflect reality, not because we want to bias against PRC. The only way to circumvent this issue is to define China as where PRC controls and take note of PRC's claim in the articles to reflect PRC's POV. However, it seems less likely to reach such a consensus.Mababa 05:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The people of Taiwan do not agree "there is one China". The government of Taiwan for decades used the fiction (excuse) that there was one China to avoid being voted out of office by the Taiwan people. 4.250.168.188 13:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)