Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 27

Merge China and PRC

I've said it before, but the notion that keeping the PRC and China articles seperate is in adherence to NPOV is paradoxical when what Wikipedia is doing in actuality is giving undue weight to fringe claims by the ROC of their ownership of mainland China - thusly violating NPOV. Of course, it's a clean, simple-minded approach to suggest that simply because a nation is technically contested its page should be a geographic one linking to two conflicting political entities; but the guiding principle of fairness behind it is essentially inverse, since by subverting the common understanding of what comprises 'China' (and what is a country but how it's defined?) Wikipedia is by extension advocating a process of definition very different than the one that's commonly used, and therefore politically biased. Analagous is if I managed to - with the help of a fringe political party - declare Prince Edward County a country, then claimed rightful ownership of Canada: would Wikipedia be really embodying objectivity to give claims noone takes seriously equal coverage? Or would they merely be inadvertently promoting my cause?

A better solution would be to merge the PRC and China articles together (so as to recount China's entire history) then include a section devoted specifically to the relationship between the exiled Kuomingtang in Taiwan and China proper. As it stands - and I've taught East Asian history in universities all across the country, so I should be no slouch on the subject - the unnecesary muddling of this article makes it seem amateurish and Eurocentric, and should be erected as soon as possible.

China is the country of all things and is were mostly amercian sources come from. Shoes, clothes,and materails for jobs and other important things . china is a peaceful place but also have many problems such as money depression and plenty of other problems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.13.99 (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The fact that the historic means by which Chinese assessed what entailed 'China' wasn't a formal one so much as one based on what regime possessed foremost legitimacy (this was largely contingent upon imperial support) only reinforces how silly it is to assert that China 'means' ROC every bit as much as it 'means' PRC. But then again, I suppose Wikipedia doesn't possess a whole lot of sympathy for the idea that a nation or country is definable outside of the regimes which literally stake claim to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.201.151 (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You can find much discussion of this already above as well as on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) and Talk:People's Republic of China. L (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The communist People's Republic of China is merely the government of mainland China. It doesn't not represent China in general, nor does it represent Chinese history. The PRC has been around for 50 years. "China" has been around for at least 4200 years. Enough of this propaganda and do your math pal. Intranetusa (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask a person IN China if their country is 50 years old and they will invariably say no.Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This should all be deleted for POV issues. All discussion of Red China and Little China is big trouble.

Childstarwars (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look in the PRC article, you will see that 'PRC' refers to the country, not the communist party. MaskedEditor (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

......

So long as the ROC continues to exist, the distinction has to be made. 1000 years from now, the distinction will also still be made. Just as we still talk about Shu-Han, Cao Wei and Dong Wu (The Three Kingdoms). The Southern and Northern Dynsties. And the 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have understood that in Wikipedia country articles should have the commonly used name of the country as the title. Thus Iran, for example, is named as Iran, not the Islamic Republic of Iran. That's because people commonly mean the Islamic Republic of Iran when they say Iran. Similarly, it is common practice to use China to mean the People's Republic of China. This practice is arguably the most common naming practice, it is used, among others, by the UN (http://www.un.org.cn/index.htm), the US Government (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm), the EU (http://www.eu-in-china.com/) and the OECD (http://www.oecd.org/country/0,3377,en_33873108_36016481_1_1_1_1_1,00.html)... I could continue the list indefenetly with international agencies, media and governments. In fact, it is very difficult to find examples to the opposite effect.

Why does not the naming of articles in Wikipedia follow the practice of giving the generally used name of the country to the article about China? From there you could have links to articles such as the history of China and Taiwan. This seems to be the only instance where an exception is done, and it does look like a NNPOV. --Tungsten (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't look very far Tungsten. Check out Ireland, Palestine, Korea and Macedonia. In each of those cases the primary topic is the historical entity (or in Macedonia's case, a disambiguation page), while the modern country goes under a more formal name (Republic of Ireland etc). Skinsmoke (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Palestine I can understand since it's not very widely recognized as a state. Korea is divided to two countries of more or less of the same size, of which neither is commonly called simply Korea. Macedonia has a unique naming issue that is actively being negotiated and many international organizations do not use the name Macedonia, therefore there is an actual reason for further clarification. Ireland is in this sense the only case that's similar to China's, because the country of Ireland is commonly called Ireland. Anyway the main point is that in common usage (international organizations, media, goverments, etc.) the country of China is usually just called China. Wikipedia applies this as a criterion for naming articles, and it would make sense to apply it in the case of China too. --Tungsten (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Separating China from the PRC is like separating the Obama Administration from the USA: it is absurd.

China has always been a "one party state".

Please also note that Chiang Kaishek and Mao Zedong always agreed that there was only one China. This is the basis for cross-straits relations to this day. Also note that 80% of Taiwanese exports are to the Mainland. There are direct flights and cross-straits tourism should be in the order of 350,000 mainlanders this year.

Go to the religious accessory shops in Singapore, Hong Kong or Beijing and Shanghai and you will see statues of Mao Zedong lined up for sale among Guanyin, Zheng He and other traditional divinities.

The concept that Communism has this magical ability to cut off a people from all their cultural heritage is something imaginable only by Americans and Christian supremacists. In more polite terms, the appropriate term is "US-ethnocentric".

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou

---

I don't understand why Wikipedia is separating the Modern PRC from the history of China pre-1949. The current Chinese government is an integral and fundamental element of Chinese history. The CPC should really be looked at as a ruling dynasty more than anything else...I don't think anyone other than fringe groups questions the legitimacy of the PRC government after almost 60 years now, and the current "Chinese civilization" article is confusing and arbitrary, who's to say when "Chinese civilization" ends? This whole thing screams of political correctness gone way overboard, by this logic we should have a seperate article for each dynasty. I strongly suggest we MERGE these articles into one "China" article. Paco8191 (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The PRC represents one slice of the history of China. We need one article that covers the concept of China in general and then see full article for the various time periods. We could treat the PRC as the main article and split out the other periods, but then we'd just need to reorg sometime in the next few decades when the PRC folds. Hcobb (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That the PRC will fold is a POV.

To separate the PRC from all the country's preceding governments is to put it under a political quarantine that the US Government abandoned in the 1970s. This is just plain Cold War thinking.

There are greater grounds for dividing up French history into KIngdom of France and Republic of France: after all, when this nation celebrated its bicentennial in 1989, not one kingdom sent a head of state to attend: Belgium, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom (to name but a few) sent their prime minister, not their king or queen.

The distinction between China and PRC is ridiculous and politically biased.

Let's move forward on this issue. --Arthur Borges (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I am proposing that we split pages on Chinese topic as follows:

Proposed Name	Topics covered
China	Geography of China (no actual text, but links to its counterparts at the Taiwan and PRC article), the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", the constituent entities that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan), cultures and customs
China (Historical)	A bowdlerized history of China, including its successive dynasties (with links to the history section of each of the dynasties), areas ruled (there are wild variations between dynasties) with a cutoff point at the end of the Qing Dynasty.
People's Republic of China	People's Republic of China as it stands today (no change whatsoever)
Republic of China (1912)	ROC as it existed before it retreated to Taiwan
Republic of China	ROC after its retreat to Taiwan (aka: Taiwanese Government)

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to change two things to make it work. First, the China can talk about the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", and even different definitions of what "China" is, but when you start talking about "geography" or more problematically "the constituent nations that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan)" you run into trouble. Your very proposal lacks NPOV by including Taiwan in the constituent nations. And if you talk about geography you'll have no end of trouble trying to decide whether to include that big island off the coast of Fujien province. By not equating China with PRC you'll even run into difficulties trying to decide whether to include that big plateau and montain range pushed up by India colliding into Asia. But if you stick to just describing the different definitions and providing links to articles with more info you'll be fine. It will be like a deluxe disambiguation page. E

There is no need to break the ROC page into two pages because of Terroritral expansion and shrinkage. T-1000 (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not? The territorial change was very significant. There could even be three articles because the democratization was significant too.--Jerrch 01:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It pushes the POV that Taiwan is not a part of China, which violates NPOV. As for democratization, we don't have separate articles for United States (Pre 1865) and United States (post 1865), despite there was signifacant democratization. T-1000 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It also pushes the POV that Taiwan is part of China. As for the significance, there was not only democratization, but also there were localization, desinicization, and rise of Taiwanese nationalism.--Jerrch 23:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It is, accroding to the ROC's terrortial defintion. There's also signifancant dispute regarding those other terms. T-1000 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

T-1000, you analogy with the US is misused, and off-topic. Taiwan, as it exists today, is much different legally than the ROC that exists before. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

different legally? such as? T-1000 (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am advocating for the split, because the ROC before and after its relocation to Taiwan are different not only territorially, but legally and constitutionally as well. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of China has maintained the same constitution since 1948 (before the withdrawal/retreat/relocation to Taiwan), so constitutionally it has not changed, with of course minor changes to the parts concerning legislative duties and powers (i.e. the dissolution of the National Assembly and majority of its powers transfered to the Legislative Yuan). nat.utoronto 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Second, rename Republic of China (1949) to Republic of China (Taiwan) (1949).

Readin (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I will amend the topics covered for China, but I am not going to change the current ROC page to Republic of China (Taiwan), for we might violate NPOV, as that title might be construed by some that we condone Taiwan Independence. The issue of China is no joke, and we need to be careful. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the idea that we shouldn't split the ROC article into pre and post 1949. While the territory changed, there was continuity of government. The same dictator and autocrats remained in power; and the structure of the government remained. The ROC article is about the government, not about either of the countries it ruled. The fact that you think adding the territory governed post 1949 to the title condones independence, while it is clear to me that the territory governed is integral to the article and - it is the very reason for having a post 1949 article and avoiding it would violate NPOV, shows that the split might now work anyway.

Let's keep the ROC article as one article focused on the government. The Taiwan article can continue to deal with non-governmental aspects of the modern ROC. That leaves us with a hole for the non-governmental aspects of 1912-1949 China. Let's call that "China during the Republican Period" or something similar, or perhaps lump it in with "China (historical)".Readin (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have set up this sample page here to show what the Republic of China (1912) article could look like. It is work in progress, but it's a start. Also, for ROC after 1949, I think we could suffice with the current name, instead of adding "(1949)" after it. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think splitting is good, because of the radically different governments involved. Yes, there was continuity, but after the move to Taiwan, the government underwent radical changes that make it more localized to Taiwan. Also, the size of the ROC article is within the area where splitting is suggested. This is a good chance to truly delineate the ROC article into a pre and post Taiwan stage. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of this needs to be merged onto one single talk page. China (Historical) should just redirect to History of China. The history of China is a succession of states (dynasties), all of which will have the "former countries" template applied. It is impossible to apply the template on pre-modern China as a whole.

No succession of governments, all of which need articles showing this succession, and something as major as the Nationalist Government really needs an article. The state existed more-or-less undisputed throughout the Republican era, but no single government gained complete control over it (so what the heck do we mean when we say the Republic of China "ruled" all of China before 1949?) and at times (e.g. WWII) there were rival governments going by the same name and flag. There are clear breaks in rule in 1912, 1916, 1928, 1937, 1945, and 1949. How many Republic of Chinas do we need? --Jiang (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would generally argue that the watershed for the ROC happened in 1949, when they moved to Taiwan. That is where we draw the line for the ROC, and create a page for the ROC before, and the ROC after Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal for co-ordinated rewrites is a starting point. I picture a variation thereof, as follows:

• China — Geography of mainland China; history of the Chinese people; historical summaries of the Sun Empire (<1912), Republic of China (1912-1949) and People's Republic of China (1949-present). See-also's to include Dynasties in Chinese history (essentially unchanged from current Article), History of China (essentially unchanged from current Article), Republic of China (see below), People's Republic of China (see below).
• Taiwan (officially Taiwan, Republic of China) — Geography of Formosa; History of Formosan people (under Sun Empire, Empire of Japan and Republic of China suzerainties); Administrative structures of Taiwan governments by era.
• Republic of China — Governmental structure under the Zun Yatzen and Jiang Gaishek Administrations and reorganization of 1948; notable legislative acts in mainland China, 1912-1949, and on Taiwan, 1949-present; related data. (Essentially the current ROC article, with appropriate major amendments.)
• People's Republic of China — Governmental structures under First Secretaries Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, &c.; Prefectures and Autonomous Regions; notable acts of People's Congress; related data. (Essentially the current PRC article, with appropriate major amendments.)

This seems to me the best structure for maintaining the most neutral POV practicable at this time, provided that the Articles can be properly coordinated. The one unanswered question is whether it can be done sans edit wars. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that a split of the ROC article into the ROC today (which will be covered by the ROC article currently in existence) and the ROC of 1912 is a good solution. The ROC article is way too long anyways, and cutting some of the fat out of that article and transfer it to the ROC (1912) page would be good. The French and Spanish Wikipedia, I believe, work under the same principle. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I still like the Arbiteroftruth's proposal at the top of this section. To be acceptable however, the ROC post 1949 needs a "(Taiwan)" in the title to make it NPOV. Without that change it fails the fundamental NPOV test. If Arbiteroftruth is opposed to doing so, I'm also ok with keeping the ROC eras in a single article. Arbiteroftruth's description of the China article is not perfect - he's making too much effort to have Taiwan be part of China, but the details can be haggled over while writing the actual article. A possible China article description is shown below.

Proposed Name	Topics covered
China	Disambiguation with links to PRC, ROC and the dishes, etc.. The different definitions of what area constitutes "China", with appropriate links as necessary to general articles and geography articles (Taiwan, Mongolia, geography of PRC, geography of ROC incluing Mongolia, etc.). Etymology of "China".

The handling of "culture and customs" will need to be worked out. We could include in the China article "Culture and customs of the PRC (culture and customs of Taiwan are already covered in the Taiwan article, and a link to the Taiwan article will have already been provided in the section on different definitions)." Or we might divide the section on the culture and customs of China into different section with a subsection called "customs and culture of disputed regions" that includes or links to articles on the culture and customs of Taiwan, Mongolia and maybe even Tibet. Readin (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC) --- I detect a serious failure to grasp the China/Taiwan issue and the mindsets at play. WW2 negotiations among the Allies gave Taiwan back to China and that's what happened after 1945. Both the Communist Party of China and the Kuomintang (aka Guomindang) are adamant that there is only one China. The USG acknowledged recognition of the One China policy, and if this too is a POV, it is a weighty one.

Yes, there are issues: the _native born_ Taiwanese hate the Chinese, but this is because Chiang Kaishek came in, decapitated the local power pyramid and set up a police state of the likes they had never before experienced -- even under the Japanese, whom they still adore. But then go and poll Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians and the odd Alaskan I know about how they feel about statehood/independence!

If you really want to go POV, then follow through: China has 56 officially recognized ethnic nationalities -- do treat each as a separate country. But if you do that, then treat any US state with some microgroup of fringe independence radicals as separate entries independent of Washington's oppression!

Returning specifically to Taiwan, Mao, Zhou Enlai and Chiang Kaishek are all heirs to Sun Yatsen and his ideal of the republic as the key for China to become a member of the world community.

Yes, they were bitter enemies before the Japanese expanded their hold on Chinese territory and it vaguely improved to being bittersweet enemies during the wider Japanese occupation, but after Chiang's death, relations warmed markedly: if you look at Mainland missile tests and Taiwanese presidential elections, you will see a correlation. Beijing would fire missiles during the election campaign to help swing the vote _in favour of_ of the Kuomintang (Guomindang). I have to infer collusion!

It is NOT neutral to imagine that Marxism/Leninism managed to erase 8,000 years of civilization and culture overnight(or 3 or 5 depending on your baseline of choice).

Really, one mustn't carry over one's personal political fantasies too far! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Chinese civilization" is PRCs civilization

This article needs to be merged with People's Republic of China. There is no such thing as "Chinese civilization" anymore. It is now PRCs civilization. Chinese civilization is nonsense made up term. Merge with PRC. A lot of Western nonsense in this "China" article, trying to say "China" is "ancient" civilization and "multinational" or "national" entity. The people that wrote this has no idea what he/she is talking about. Period. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame it on "western nonsense". The objections to merging People's Republic of China (PRC) and China are largely from a thought process advocated by the PRC itself and by people and the descendents of people who fled China to occupy Taiwan at the end of the Chinese Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readin (talk • contribs)

You are so wrong it is unbelievable. This is a political device promoted by politicians to advance their interests. The common people call the PRC "China" and the ROC "Taiwan". --slashem (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

People, we are dealing with a flamer here. Ignore the comments from that sorry excuse of a person. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry excuse of a person" is a violation of WP:NPA. --Joowwww (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Arbiteroftruth" hahaha. --slashem (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And what is that supposed to mean? Comments like that are not helpful. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, remember when you said "But I don't have conversations like this with anyone else"? ;) T-1000 (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I said what I said, I checked out the posts made by that IP, and they were all none too helpful to Wikipedia. Much of them were soppy edits, griping about something. I don't do things arbitrarily. I back them with evidence. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job ignoring me guys. But hey, just because I've seen every attempt to rationalize these articles fail, don't let it keep you from wasting your time. How's that consensus coming? --slashem (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Taiwan and ROC issue aside, aren't the PRC and China two separate articles because China refers to historic "China" in an aggregate sense, i.e. from its inception as a unified empire under the Qin Dynasty and its solidified, collective culture by the time of the Han Dynasty, whereas the PRC refers to "China" as the modern country governed for the last 6 decades by the CCP? To reinforce this point, I think most people would say that overall "China" has a much longer history and cultural identity than the history and national identity forged in the last 6 decades under rule of the People's Republic, and that the entire history of "China" is different from that of the People's Republic. Plus, dynastic China really doesn't have much to do with the modern communist regime except for the fact that the former was the predecessor of the latter. In an anachronistic fashion, it's kind of like saying that the modern Arab Republic of Egypt is the same civilization as Ancient Egypt, no? Thoughts?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually no. See afawk Ancient Egypt was an african nation with an identity based on a local group of polytheistic and animistic religions and eventually with strong influences from other mediterranean seafaring nations such as the Greeks and the Romans. The modern Arab Republic of Egypt is composed largely of recent (historically speaking) Arabic people who migrated from the middle east. Historical China was a Han culture with an authoritarian government propped up by a theoretically meritocratic bureaucracy (notwithstanding family connections, wealth and corruption). The modern PRC is a Han culture with an authoritarian government propped up by a theoretically meritocratic bureaucracy (notwithstanding family connections, wealth and corruption). Post-Deng the main difference between Imperial China and the PRC is that the leader is no longer selected on the basis of heredity.Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pericles. There are many ways to divide a subject up between encyclopedia articles, and this is even more true of Wikipedia because each individual article is so short. Whereas Britannica can have one article titled "China" and have it run for thirty pages, each Wikipedia article is about two or three. From my perspective it is obvious that there are many aspects of China and its history which need to be covered in many different articles, with links between them. However, I think it should be clear that the most common search term users will start with is "China" and so China should be considered the "top-level" gateway article. The real question is what belongs in China and what should be linked to in daughter articles.

The two main sides in this debate are: (1) follow common usage and the convention set by other encyclopedias, where the article listed under "China" focuses primarily on the modern country with a subsection (on Wikipedia, a daughter article) for the history, and (2) try to be neutral by not talking about any modern country in China, which therefore would only be about history.

Since you are familiar with Chinese history, I am sure you know that Chinese dynasties have always come and gone. If you want to argue that the last six decades should be treated separately, why exactly do the previous four millennia belong together? I personally don't think the "dynastic" change to the PRC is so much greater than other dynastic successions in Chinese history. Human beings always believe whatever is closest is most significant, and I think we overestimate the magnitude of the break to the PRC because it is the most recent.

The example of other ancient civilizations like Egypt has been mentioned before. If you actually look at Egypt, you will see that it is a standard country article, with a subsection that summarizes Egypt's (vast) history. This is what I favor for China.

Everyone knows by now that although we are arguing about standards, there is in fact no standard on Wikipedia. Although people keep proposing standards, with various implications for related articles, Wikipedia never has had a real standard and I don't believe it ever will have one.

Nevertheless, it is always a pleasure to speak with you. --slashem (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the sides of this debate now, thank you for clarifying. Although I still believe that the People's Republic deserves its own article aside from "China", since the entity of "China" as a unified political unit was born long before 1949 (with interruptions and periods of division along the way), I also think that this article on "China" would be ridiculous if it focused entirely on bygone history and did not include details on both the PRC and ROC in their modern context, or if it made some awkward attempt to ignore the last 60 years at the tail end of the history section of "China". In regards to the modern ROC and PRC, how could one avoid that gigantic 'elephant standing in the living room'? So to speak. I think most people would regard mainland China and Taiwan as integral parts of "historic China", therefore they are integral parts of what is "modern China", despite the existence of two governments.

To make a comparison, I wouldn't dare say that the Kingdom of Tungning on Taiwan, or even the Khitan Liao Dynasty lording over the Sixteen Prefectures for that matter, weren't placed in what is "China", simply because the Qing Dynasty in the former scenario and the Song Dynasty in the latter scenario had a bigger stake or claim in holding most of what we would consider the cultural and territorial bounds of "China". However, since mainland China is such a bigger portion of China and Taiwan a much smaller portion of China, the focus on modern culture, politics, business, etc. should be aimed at what is happening within the PRC, while contemporary culture, politics, business, etc. within the ROC can be explained to a lesser degree. To make yet another comparison, if the ROC was given an equal amount of textual explanation as the PRC in regards to what is "China" today, that would be like going to the article on the United States and filling up half the article with stuff about one region, say, Hawaii. Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, doesn't the largely unrecognized independent status of Northern Cyprus in the international community remind you of the status of the Republic of China on Taiwan? Since the latter is not treated by the international community at large as a legitimate separate entity from "China"?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that slashem was pointing out that the "China" article should be about the PRC with a short section on the history of China including the history of the ROC and the Chinese dynasties. It makes a lot of sense. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I oppose the merger for reasons I have given above in the previous post.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Any article titled "PRC Civilization" can, by definition, only deal with events after 1 October 1949, or events directly connected with the formation of the PRC. And even that would be a stretch given that PRC is a state. I don't think we would venture to say "West German Civilization". Therefore, the question is not whether or not we should merge "Chinese civilization" with "PRCs civilization" or not, but why on earth we are even discussing an article called something so ridiculous as "PRC civilization." 12:04, 4 November2008

-In some ways, the original poster is correct. Mao did everything he could to destroy Chinese culture (Cultural Revolution anyone?) to create a world modeled after himself as God. When was the last time school children in China studied Confucius? They never stopped studying Confucius in Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

--- --- Nobody in the PRC or ROC speaks of "PRC civilization". It's either "Han" or "Chinese" civilization.

If you need a model look at the US State Department's Background Notes: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm for the PRC and http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm for the ROC.

Note that (1) the history marks the 1949 break with a new new paragraph -- like a distinction between any other two dynasties and (2) the PRC is listed as "China" with "official name" as Peoples Republic of China and, for Taiwan, "Taiwan" entered twice (I'd put "Republic of China" as the official name, because it's what it calls itself and no, I don't know why State isn't using it).

A MERGER IS IN ORDER.

--Arthur Borges (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposed

On Talk:People's Republic of China there is a merger proposal proposing to merge China and People's Republic of China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.11.234 (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have yet to see any sensible arguments made to support such merger, especially after you read the articles. Hmains (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The argument is simple: Both the ROC and PRC agree on the One China policy. That has been the case since Sun Yatsen, Mao Zedong and Chiang Kaishek: tell anyone of them otherwise and they will turn over in their graves.

As the Chinese have a healthy respect for ghosts and science has yet to disprove their existence (innocent till proven guilty, right?), I would be cautious about ignoring the will of these three titans.

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

History, China US Ties for 100's of Years)

add section or ref at bottom under "Further Reading" See long, long history of China US Ties to US Presidents in new book discussing also 4000 year time line

• amazon kindle e book China's US Presidents
• amazon paperback China's US Presidents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.165.95 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a self-published source of unknown reliability. See WP:RS and WP:SPSMartinlc (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, by my count, there have been 14 military interventions by US forces in China since the early 1800s against none in the other direction on US soil.

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Environment of china

In the section "Geography and environment", nowhere is it mentioned that china is the biggest! emitter of greenhouse gases and that air quality in china (near cities) is amongst the worst in the world. Also, please state that this is due to its huge consumption of coal (the most polluting energy source).

I also recommend seperating geography and environment, so that the environment section gets its own section (which it needs, given that its an important issue).

Thanks in advance, KVDP (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Also please put in that although China is the biggest consumer of coal, it also has the biggest population, and is the biggest producer of the world's goods. If the chinese didn't use so much coal, this would lead to factory failures and people in (especially western)countries would lose most of their clothes,toys, computer monitor screens and even plastic. Also note that Chinese people traditionally have environmental-friendly habits - when cold, the chinese put on an extra coat while most Europeans light up the fireplace. KVDP's comment is biased(in my opinion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.231.227.154 (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Ah yes, we should also add that about half of Chinese exports are intercompany trade between Western multinationals and their Chinese subsidiaries.

How amusing that US consumers are willing to trade their jobs for lower Walmart prices.

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of press

Please add the following line "China has been rated 163rd of the 169 countries based on their freedom of press, by the Worldwide Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders. The line is to be added after "Examples include the fight against terrorism, jailing of political opponents and journalists, custody regulation of the press, regulation of religion, and suppression of independence/secessionist movements."

thanks, 81.244.196.75 (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think detailed information like that is better placed at People's Republic of China, personally. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

--- The West has strange baselines for freedom of the press: the fact that the Chinese press is state-owned and not dependent on advertising income means that journalists have MORE freedom to investigate the abuses of private enterprise in what is now a market economy -- which is why some of them get murdered. Now that money talks here, honesty is not always the best policy any more.

I have personal examples of people fired for being too investigative in China. I never saw any investigative spirit in the Western journalists I have worked with. Except if they were new. Or drunk.

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Confucianism is not religion!!!

It is totally not religion Western countries don't understand confucianism at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.53.245.107 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Really depends on whose definition of religion you're using. Most religious studies departments allow Marxism to be taught in Intro. to Religious Studies classes. 76.123.226.12 (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)DaveDaveDave

---

It's very Western/Mediterranean to imagine that there is only One God who has a perpetual patent on The Truth.

China is supermarket spirituality: you have Daoism, Buddhism and Confucianism. Buddhism is for pain management, mostly emotional but physical too. Daoism is about managing the relationship between the energies circulating inside your body with those operating the universe and Confucianism is about regulating relationships between oneself and the rest of society.

So you drink and eat like a Daoist, socialize and pay hommage to your deceased forefathers/mothers like a Confucian and then you cry and try to be helpful to your fellow wo/man like a Buddhist.

But hardly anyone in China expects any Creator of the Universe to delegate anybody to marry you or save your pair of buns from any inferno that befalls them!

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

City-state designation for HK and Macau

There's been some dispute over the use of the term "city-state" to describe Hong Kong and Macau in this article. So that we can have discussion here, rather than just reverts, I'll go ahead and reiterate the argument in my recent edit summary: The term city-state usually refers to a sovereignty, which HK and Macau are not. They are, at best, special cases of city-states and shouldn't be referred to as city-state without at least some form of qualification. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• LOL, that wasn't the issue, and I don't think I will contest that unless i really hv the time. The issue was more like about the sentence "China has effective control over HK". That's simply incorrect. I have cited the "Sino-British Joint Declaration" in the correction. Cheers --Da Vynci (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the way it is now looks better. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it's been reverted again by Pyl, who made this comment elsewhere (incidentally, I'm rather puzzled that we're discussing this on user talk pages and not on the talk page of the article where the dispute occurred. Surely such fragmented discussion can't help to build consensus?) I think this revert was a step backward. Whether or not the PRC has full control over Hong Kong and Macau de jure, the two territories are largely de facto internally self-governing, and such a thing ought to be noted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

De fato? De Jure? I think the concepts should be clarified here.

Hong Kong is largely self-governing both de facto and de jure; and

The PRC also has full control of Hong Kong, both de facto and de jure. The PRC can at any time override the Basic Law through the principles of Parliamentary Soverignty (the Parliament can make whatever law it pleases). I believe that's considered as de facto control of Hong Kong.

PRC leaves Hong Kong to administer its local affairs is nothing different from a City Council having the power to maintain roads, collect rubbish, make by-laws etc. You wouldn't say that the City Council is self-governing de facto. PRC just likes people to know that they don't interfere so they look good but it doesn't mean that they can't.--pyl (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I just realised I have opened a Pandora's Box. So to be brief, what pyl refers to is the small potatoes in District Council of Hong Kong, they have the power to maintain roads, collect rubbish, make by-laws etc. The Legislative Council of Hong Kong, however, has much higher power, since they have veto power to any amendment to the Basic Law [1], it isn't like how pyl described that China can change our Basic Law whatever/whenever they want. Thus, this is not "effect control". Of course, China can do little gestures such as blocking USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) from entering Hong Kong's habour for holiday (coz that's foreign affairs & defence issue), but China can't change the Basicl Law without Legislative Council's consent. Hence, I stand by my suggestion of "China, has effective control over mainland China, and has sovereignty over internally self-governing territorties of Hong Kong"--Da Vynci (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at some of the proposed changes:

• the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, has effective control over mainland China, and has sovereignty over internally self-governing territorties of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999).

That's not too bad, but it is in the wrong place. Hong Kong and Macau are clearly part of the PRC - even the PRC's language of '1 country 2 systems makes that clear. The context of the above statement is in trying to distinguish the PRC from the ROC. There is no need to go into the details about Hong Kong and Macau. The information needs to be moved. Wherever the information is put, HK and Macau should not be called "city-states" as they are not self-sovereign. And Pyl is right to say that the defense and foreign affairs should be covered. As for internal government, it should read something like "Under the Basic Law agreed to by the PRC and UK, the PRC allows HK a almost complete autonomy in governing its internal affairs, but the PRC has the final say in interpreting any limitations placed on it by the Basic Law. Readin (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me bring the discussion that was conducted in Da Vynci's talk page as I think it is relevant to this article and I believe Heimstern also mentioned the discussion should be done here. The discussion is reproduced, as follows:-

Which part of Hong Kong does China has effective control other then defence and foreign affairs? huh!? I am thrill to know. Does having the Queen's portrait of your all ur coins mean Australia is "effectly controlled" by the Government of the UK? NO~~. Hong Kong uses the name "Hong Kong, China" doesn't mean we are controlled by that country, says the Constitution. Hence, any 'effective control " apart from defence and foreign affairs over the city-state will be deemed as constitutional. --Da Vynci (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Beijing undertook to respect Hong Kong's status for 50 years. That was 1997 when HKG's GDP was 40% of the PRC's. Since then, lots of cross-pollination has been happening.

On Australia, its head of state is the Governor General, familiarly referred to as the GG. Everybody laughs at her/him but there was this one that annulled an entire national election. And guess what? S/he has every power to pull that stunt again or simply dissolve the Australian parliament at the snap of a finger.

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou

---

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message so it allows me to explain what I meant.

You asked me which part of Hong Kong does PRC have control. I think you then answered the question: defence and foreign affairs. Your original sentence was:-

"[PRC] has effective control over mainland China and has sovereignty over internally self-governing city states of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999)."

Your sentence implies that PRC does not have effect control over Hong Kong. But in fact, as you said the PRC central government has effect control over Hong Kong in respect of defence and foreign affairs. I note you cited the Sino-British Joint Declaration to back up your argument. But that's irrelevant in this issue.

Also you said that Hong Kong is a city state. It is not. It is a local government of a state called the People's Republic of China. Singapore is a city state called the Republic of Singapore.

The United Kingdom does not have any control over Australia. Please let me refer you to the Australia Act 1986. It is a piece of legislation passed by both Parliaments of Australia and the UK saying the UK Parliament shall not make any laws for Australia or any of its states. In this respect, Australia is a fully independent nation. Also, the Queen in Australia has an official title of "Queen of Australia". When she exercises her powers in right of Australia, she is acting as the Queen of Australia (not of the United Kingdom).

Hong Kong, on the other hand, is a different story. The PRC government can at any time make laws to override the Basic Law in accordance of the legal principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty (the parliament can make whatever laws it pleases). The Sino-British Joint Declaration cannot prevent that from happening. This is another example that PRC has effect control over Hong Kong.--pyl (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Even without the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the PRC still has final say as it has the power to interpret the Basic Law any way it wants. Readin (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the wording limits the interpretation. However, with Parliamentary Sovereignty, they can legally do whatever they want with Hong Kong.--pyl (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

______________________________

Parliamentary Sovereignty or not, those r hypothetical at best, in practice China cannot pass any amendment of the Basic Law without first obtaining the consent from Legislative Council of Hong Kong. Because the Legislative Council has the veto power. Reference An amendment of the the Constitution of Hong Kong requires the consent of:

• Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC),
• the Chief Executive, and
• Two third majority of the Legislative Council.

So China cannot do whatever they want, and do not have effective control of Hong Kong as Pyl described, and I stand by my suggestion of "China, has effective control over mainland China, and has sovereignty over internally self-governing territorties of Hong Kong" --Da Vynci (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In practice China can pass any law it wants regardless of the legco, or dissolve it altogether. But they don't have to go that far. If they want want the Basic Law changed all they have to do is "reinterpret" it. And there is no check on Beijing's ability to do so. If the text of the Basic Law gets in the way, then can interpret the "spirit" of the Basic Law, and they always say that the "spirit" of the Basic Law is to give the PRC sovereignty. Readin (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But the wording limits the interpretation, just as Pyl said. So the control is limited, they can't do whatever they want, and your supernatural spirit hypothesis is as thin as an anorexic. Please, we are talking about formal amendment here, not minor details such as interpretation. Interpretation without the power of amendment at will demonstrates limted control. --Da Vynci (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't go into a lot of details right now, but there is plenty of precedent for ignoring the text of laws and regulations in favor of other motivations. See Pine Tar Incident or numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Readin (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes you just opened a Pandora's box. lol.

'Parliamentary Sovereignty' is hypothetical at best? I don't believe that any reasonable person would form that view if he or she studies the relevant legal texts on this subject.

Please let me reproduce the relevant text regarding amendment to the Basic Law as follows:-

Article 159

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

The first paragraph says it all. The power is vested on the PRC central government, not on the Hong Kong SAR government. The rest of the Article is technicalities. The PRC says they can't make amendments that's in contravention with the established basic policies but that does not mean that PRC does not have effect control over Hong Kong. The Basic Law is PRC law (not HK law) and the power to amend is vested on the PRC. Nothing stops the PRC making laws which says "The Basic Law of Hong Kong is repealed" then replace it with another piece of legislation. The power to repeal (not just to amend) the Basic Law is clearly vested on the PRC.

Then, I also agree with Readin. The power of interpretation the Basic Law also means PRC has effect control over HK. It is the PRC who makes the interpretation, not the HK SAR government. The PRC has effective control over HK.

There is probably a misunderstanding with the City Council example that I gave above. Please let me give another example. In Australia's federation (and I think it is similar to those in the US and Canada), between local governments (such as a city council) and the federal government, there are state governments. Under Australia's constitution, the Federal government can only make laws relating to certain powers, but not others. For example, Australia's state governments have powers to make law in relation to criminal laws such as murder, etc. The federal government does not. No reasonable person would in this case argue that the Federal government have no effective control over the states. The following sentences:-

"Australia's federal government has sovereignty over Australia, but the States of Australia have effect control over their respective States as they have powers over certain matters such as criminal law, contract law, wills and estates etc."; and

"Australia's federal government has sovereignty over Australia, but the States of Australia have effect control over their respective States as they are responsible for all local matters except for defence, foreign affairs, etc, which are the responsibilities of the Federal government"

don't quite make sense, do they? After all, it is the Federal High Court who interprets the Australian federal and state Constitutions.

Please let me reproduce what Wikipedia says about 'Parliamentary Sovereignty', as follows:-

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarised in three points:

• Parliament can make law concerning anything.

• No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).

• A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is supreme law maker

The concept is very plainly set out so I don't think I need to go into details. The PRC has the ultimate power in relation to Hong Kong. The PRC has effective control over Hong Kong.

As I said, PRC wants people to know that they can leave Hong Kong to take care of its own local affairs so they look good. The PRC doesn't have a good reputation with the business community, and it is not in their best interest if HK no longer shines as "the Pearl of the Orient" so they want to be subtle. But the PRC still has effect control over Hong Kong, they don't want people to know that because they would then look bad.--pyl (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, all u have demonstrated is that China has the sovereignity. That's ok. I uploaded a version that acknowledges that. But sovereignity isn't equal to effective control here, especially when China CHOSE not to exercise such control. Now, what u are saying is that if someday in the future China wants, they can legally repeal HK's constitution at their pleasure and assume full effective control. But since they have chosen to let HK be self-governing for now, let's acknowledge this fact. Wikipedia is not acrystal ball. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a diverse of opinion over what the term "effective control" is.

To me, the times are gettting to short to be going on this wabsite and reading random rubish, there fore the china population should be completley erased!! regardless whether the power is exercised or otherwise. bananas are the main food ther, because the chinese are very clos to apes, they do enjoy a good banana every once and a while,. Well, more then every once and a while, more like evry three frickin seconds. Asians eat so many babanas! i bet you didnt know that! has the power to control Hong Kong as it has the ability to repeal whatever laws in Hong Kong and there is nothing a third party can do anything about it.

I guess to you "effective control" means the party having the power have to be actively exercising the the power.

Perhaps we can come up with a compromise that doesn't include the disputed term "effective control". I believe that it is worthwhile to point out to the reader the special position that Hong Kong and Macau are in but I don't think we should give an impression that the PRC cannot control these two places. After all, we know that it can.--pyl (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The compromise might work in another context, but here it could lead to confusion over the status of Hong Kong compared to the status of Taiwan. The context here is trying to explain that whatever the various claims to sovereignty made by the PRC and ROC, the ROC maintains military and therefor political control of Taiwan, while the PRC does the same for mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau (It was PRC troops that entered HK in 1997, after all). To call Hong Kong "self-governing" also confuses because the preferred phrase for Taiwan in the international press to explain its de facto independence is to call it a self-governing island. Obviously Hong Kong is different from Taiwan in that Taiwan's constitution cannot be re-interpreted by an authority outside Taiwan, nor are Taiwan's defense and foreign relations handled externally.

I also have concerns about the level of autonomy that HK truly has. In theory they have a high level, but I seem to recall (and I admit I don't follow HK politics too closely) that every time a re-appointment of the Chief Executive, there is a lot of talk in the press about who Beijing will choose, and every time there is an election there is a lot of talk about the Beijing controlled parties vs the pro-independence parties. But I'll let those concerns go until I have time to research some sources for you.

That's why I read all media (incl Western based media) with a grain of salt. They all have an agenda to pursue. It is in America's best interest that Taiwan remains in the status quo and to keep the Tibet independence debate alive. It is also in America's interest that Beijing looks bad and authoritarian and I believe that's why the media under report Hong Kong's autonomy.

If America is all for the so called freedom and will of the people, why did it assert such large pressure on President Chen when he wanted to declare independence for Taiwan? It is because an independent Taiwan is not in America's best interest. It no longer has a puppet to play with when it wants to contain the PRC, and if PRC attacks Taiwan when it declares independence, America might have to send troops over.--pyl (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Until then, the concerns about the context are real. The context is explaining the zones of authority of the PRC vs the ROC. It is not the place for extensive discussion HK's level of autonomy. That belongs someplace else in the article. Readin (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

You made reference to the political system of Australia, as deliberately inadequate examples due to the size difference is too great that make it impossible for a sensible comparison. The comparison fails also because Australia doesn’t have a region that has a completely different political system. Your example will only be applicable if, for example, Melbourne is a communist city while the rest of Australia is Parliamentary democracy.---Da Vynci (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be unconstitutional if Victoria becomes a PRC-style "socialist society". After all, it is difficult for most people to tell the difference between the PRC-style "socialist society" and a western capitalist society nowadays. So i don't think the example that I gave above is inadequate.--pyl (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The different is simple, becoming a PRC-style Communist state common Australian won't be able to elect their political leader. In PRC, Communist Party of China is which is guaranteed power by the Constitution. I

Again, you are making a comparsion b/w a city (hk) and a very large piece of land (Victoria). And attempt to take advantage of what comes with the nature of the difference in size such as muitlple levels of government structure to condescend hk. Using your analogy, even Singapore would rendered as a sub-national entitity simply due to their lack of federal governments. Most of China's law doesn't apply to Hong Kong and vice versa. BTW, most Australian would be outraged by your comment about making Victoria a communist state, remember you guys can't even get rid of Queen of Australia in 1999's referendum, your communist states comment will sounds ridiculous to your fellow citizens.--Da Vynci (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Readin just added some arguments on my talk page and they are relevant to this subject. So I will reproduce it here, as follows:

When was the last time that Hong Kong's Chief Executive was not selected by Beijing? How exactly is the legislature of Hong Kong selected? From what I've read, most of the votes are indirectly controlled by Beijing. It may not be formal control, but it is effective control. That Beijing doesn't choose to exercise that control daily is not the point. The point is that Beijing has the control and can use it anytime it wants. And Beijing can always interpret the Basic Law creatively to get whatever result they want from that document. Readin (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, while you (Pyl) has some idea about what you are talking about, Readin do not. Every single member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong is elected by permenent residents of Hong Kong. In the 60 members of the Council, 30 seats are elected by Universal suffrage while the other 30 are elected by professionals such as doctors, lawyers, architects, accounts etc. People without Right of Abode in HK are not allowed to vote in the election. --Da Vynci (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved Da Vynci's latest comment down so it is easier for us to continue this discussion.

"Cool, I purposed a suggestion (see current version). It says PRC has sovereignity over HK which doesn't give impression to exclde effective control. IMHO , the term self-governing has to remain because it states the current fact. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)"

"LOL, for power that isn't exercised, I think the term you are looking for is "reserved control" or reserved power. But I think the word "sovereignity" is already include such power. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)"

The way you put it is not good. Let me replace Hong Kong and Macau with Taiwan and you will see what I mean.

the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, exercises effective control over mainland China, and has sovereignity over self-governing territory of Taiwan.

You see what I mean? This totally complies with the PRC's point of view on Taiwan.

As we know, Taiwan's position is different of those of Hong Kong and Macau and that sentence can be misinterpreted the wrong way.

Hong Kong and Macau are at best "largely self-governing" but not "self-governing". The statement was made absolute again without mentioning defence and foreign affairs. It also didn't mention that Beijing really has the final say over Hong Kong and Macau.

The term "reserved power" has a legal meaning. PRC doesn't have "reserved powers" on Hong Kong. It has the actual powers. The Queen has "reserved powers". She is said to have all the powers in the world, but as you know, she can't use them unless she is advised to do so by her ministers. PRC can use the power any time it likes.--pyl (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The ROC, commonly known as Nationalist China?

I know that the ROC used to be called Nationalist China, but is it still commonly called that way today? It seems to me that it's far more often commonly called Taiwan that Nationlist China. Just trying to understand the rational here. Thanks, Laurent (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I just typed "nationalist china" taiwan (with quotes) in google and i found this:-

"The largest city, Taipei, is the seat of the government of the Republic of China (ROC; Nationalist China)."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/580902/Taiwan

Britiannica, under the main section, calls the ROC "Nationalist China".

Personally, I must say though, this term is terribly out of date, and I doubt any young people, especially those in the west, would use the term.--pyl (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, even if it appears on Britannica, it doesn't mean it's commonly called "Nationlist China". A quick search for "republic of china" "nationalist china" returns 22,900 results on Google, whereas a search for "republic of china" taiwan returns 2,700,000, so it seems clear which one is the most common. Then I guess my question is mainly: why does "Nationalist China" comes before "Taiwan" considering "Taiwan" is the most common of both terms? Laurent (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me. Maybe we should swap the order.--pyl (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I've swapped them, hope there are no objections. Laurent (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Nationalist China" suggests that the ROC is a one-party KMT state, plotting to retake the mainland. This has not been the case for many years. Kauffner (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

china

Remove "China's science and technology had fallen behind that of Europe by the 17th century." or you need to prove the claim! Science is a western thing. These cultures didn't need specifik rules to invent stuff!

Actually that statement is rather incorrect. Although there are certainly cultural differences between China and the West, China is one of the original homes of scientific enquiry and to suggest otherwise does a disservice to the many non-european scientists who contributed to our understanding. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Kunming

Kunming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.82.158 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Traditional vs Simplified

I feel the need to point out that while Traditional Chinese may be the original format, Simplified Chinese is the standard formatting used today. Street signs, menus, books are all printed in Simplified Chinese for this very reason.

I recommend using Simplified Chinese for this article and Traditional Chinese for the Taiwan article.

BUT. Make no mistake, I'm not saying we should completely eliminate Traditional text from this page. I'm merely saying that having the lead picture blaringly declare "Zhong Guo" in Traditional text goes against standardised policies, and is also a bit POVed not to also declare "Zhong Guo" in simplified text.

I understand that the lead picture was implemented for artistic purposes, however, the purpose of this article is to inform, not to appeal to the eye. ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 02:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole images seems too focused on the past with nothing from the present. Perhaps a picture of a mondern Chinese skyline or some modern iconic image like the birds nest olympic building should be squeezed in. Readin (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A valid point, however, in the wrong article's talk page. Perhaps posting a picture of modern Chinese skyline on the People's Republic of China page would be helpful. I am suggesting the implementation of a more balanced Simplified to Traditional ratio. Cheers ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 02:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But isn't this article about the Chinese civilisation. I think using those old pictures is exactly for that purpose.--pyl (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That only makes sense if you believe Chinese civilization no longer exists. Readin (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"This article is about Chinese civilization. For the modern political state comprising Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau, see People's Republic of China. For the modern political state comprising Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." Ahem. ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 23:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you really want balance. Don't forget manchu, mongolian and the many scripts China have used for hundreds of years longer. Benjwong (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but how many of these scripts are still in use today? The point of Wikipedia is to compile information, for the easy accessibility of all. Using Traditional text only, well, kind of kills that purpose. Which is why I suggest the implementation of Simplified text to balance out the article. Cheers ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 23:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are putting the modern entity in line with all the other entities before it. Sorry it doesn't seem balanced at all. You might be doing the opposite. Benjwong (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But you see, technically, the modern entity is still a part of the Chinese civilization. Cheers ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to be technical. Manchu and mongolian scripts are still part of the civilization. Benjwong (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my last point, how many of those are still in use today? The point of Wikipedia is to collect and distribute make information easily accessible to the masses. Filling a page to the max with scripts and dialects characters that are outdated would blow article sizes completely out of proportion. Undoubtedly, if somewhere in the future, Chinese language evolves to some new form, then I'm sure that would be included, and the scripts in usage now would be discarded, or archived for future reference. Cheers ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom vs. nation

Also, it is unwise to confuse western concepts of traditional and modern in regards to translations: Traditional: 中国 The first symbol means "middle" the second means "kingdom" as China(中国) is known as the "middle kingdom". Modern: 中国 The first symbol means "central" the second means "nation" as China(中国) may be understood as the "central nation".

The traditional translation is currently used and understood as the proper translation throughout China.(J03K64 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

The correct translation of 中国 is "China". Any Chinese-English dictionary will tell you this. "Middle Kingdom" is a poetic, traditional translation. "Central nation" is what you get if you translate 中 and 国 separately as if they were two separate words. This isn't a "proper" method of translation, but is done to give English speakers insight on the word's etymology. "Kingdom" is wangguo in Chinese, i.e. not the same thing as 国 guo. Kauffner (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau "returned" to the PRC? How?

People's Republic of China and Republic of China (1949–present)

Hong Kong and Macau were never under the PRC prior to 1997 and 1999, respectively, so how can they be "returned" to the PRC? This should be changed to something like "...handed over to the PRC" or "...returned to CHINA". Yes, most people will agree that nowadays when one mentions "China", it refers to land currently under the jurisdiction of the PRC; but to say that these two regions were returned to the PRC implies that it was the PRC that ceded these lands when in fact the PRC has only existed since 1949. 218.103.194.249 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's say Peter lent out a wheelbarrow to his neighbour, Fred. Peter dies - Fred returns the wheelbarrow, but since Peter is no longer around, it's Peter's wife Mary who takes the wheelbarrow back. Who did Fred return the wheelbarrow to? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fred returned the wheelbarrow to the estate.

A state is not a person. Readin (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I don't think PalaceGuard008 is completely correct, although it is quite interesting. The most correct situation is like this. Peter lent a wheelbarrow to Fred. And then, Peter and all of his family (including his wive, children, and everyone inside the house) are murdered because there was a massacre by some gangster. Then since Peter has no other family left to receive Peter's inheritance, then the government has to take over his house. After that, the government sell it back to the people who wants to buy it. Then the person who wish to buy the house is Kylie, and she is the new owner of the house, which has no family relation at all to Peter. Few years later, after finish using the wheelbarrow, Fred wish to return it back to Peter. But he can't find Peter (or any of his family). So, should Fred return it to Kylie? ... my condolences to Peter & his family, i condemn the gangster

--User:Chongkian (Talk) 03:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This question is a real hoot! Maybe the UK should have returned it to Taiwan??? What planet am I on here!!!

And all my condolences to Mary.

ROTFLMFAO that is all.Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"disputed region of Taiwan"

An edit war has been on-going on this subject in the Sports section of this article.

Readin wishes "disputed region" description being added to Taiwan, as she considers that Taiwan is not part of China.

T-1000 removes this description with a reason that "Currently, both KMT and DPP accept ROC = Taiwan."

My view is "disputed region" cannot be unneutrally added only to Taiwan because mainland China is also constitutionally disputed by the ROC. By adding the description to Taiwan and not to mainland China, Wikipedia is rejecting the ROC's constitutional claims.

I think Readin's concerns are valid. If there is a way to show 'Sports in Taiwan' while her POV is taken into account, I would be happy with that.

In relation to T-1000, my view is, it is actually partially correct. Currently, the KMT government accepts that the ROC is China, not Taiwan. See 1992 consensus and Special non-state-to-state relations. DPP indeed accepts that the ROC = Taiwan, and that part of the statement is not disputed.--pyl (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking Back in past discussions, it seems like we all agreed on that PRC and ROC being included in this article is because they formally uses "China" in their names, not about claims or sovereignty. My edit was "For sports in the Republic of China, see Sports in Taiwan". This is consistent with the ROC article as the demographics and education sections of the article link to demographics in Taiwan and education in Taiwan. Why should the sports section be any different? I believe Readin's concern are already addressed by defining "China" as the Civilization instead of the PRC. T-1000 (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

PRC and ROC are mentioned in certain places in the article since they both call themselves "China". I don't think there was ever a general agreement to use them in the whole article. The few places where we do mention the ROC and PRC, we explicitly say that they both call themselves China; we don't say they are actually part of China. Linking to "Sports in Taiwan" absent this context clearly implies that Taiwan is part of China.

Linking to a "aaa in Taiwan" article from the ROC article is different from linking from the "China" article. No one believes that Taiwan is not in the ROC. But there is disagreement as to whether the ROC is still in China.

Calling Taiwan a "disputed" region has apparantly led to some confusion. Taiwan is different from mainland China because the dispute is three way. The CPC says Taiwan and Mainland China are part of the PRC. The KMT says Taiwan and Mainland China are part of the PRC. But while no one argues about whether Mainland China is in China, people argue about whether Taiwan is in China. I wanted to keep it short and simple, but perhaps that is not possible. Perhaps we need to make it more explicit like "For sports in Taiwan, which many believe is part of China, see Sports in Taiwan" It's ugly, but the only other option I can see is just to leave the links out. Readin (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, China is defined as the Civilization in the article. Do you have sources that say that the majority of the DPP or Greens denies Taiwan or ROC as a part of the Chinese Civilization? Here's a link with Chen Shui Bian saying he is proud to be a Hua ren. http://www.cnd.org/CND-Global/CND-Global.00.4th/CND-Global.00-10-19.html

Being ethnically Han is different from being a part of Chinese Civilization. Where is your source saying Taiwan is part of Chinese Civilization? Readin (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Chen said: "We are all important parts of Chinese society (hua ren shehui), so we are honored and proud to be Chinese (hua ren)." He did not say Han, he said "Hua ren (Chinese)". Chinese can refer to either the PRC or the Civilization, and Chen does not consider himself a part of the PRC, therefore he must mean the Civilization. T-1000 (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't people like Michael Chang, born and raised in the United States, also often called "Hua ren"? Is Hoboken, New Jersey part of "Chinese Civilization"? "Chinese" can refer to the country (PRC), the civilization, the ethnicity, the culture, the race, etc.. It is certainly not a given that Chen was referring to the civilization. As for "Chinese society", Wikipedia says A society is a body of humans generally seen as a community. or group. So "Chinese society" would refer to a group of Chinese people, which as we've already discussed generally means ethnically (especially when using "hua"). Is Singapore also a part of Chinese Civilization? It can certainly be called part of Chinese society and has been described as majority Chinese. Readin (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using red herrings. We are not talking about Overseas Chinese or Singapore, but the ROC. You original reason for the removal of the link was "NPOV does not mean adopting the CPC-KMT imperialist Chinese POV. Whether Taiwan is part of China (define as the civlization) is disputed." The KMT has always said that ROC is the part of the Chinese Civilization, and I did not see you provide any sources that states the DPP disputes this position. Please first prove the dispute even exists. T-1000 (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Find the source where the KMT says that Taiwan is part of "Chinese Civilization" please. I can find sources for saying Taiwan is part of "China", and I can find sources for saying Taiwan is not part of "China". But I'm not sure how to find sources about whether Taiwan is part of "Chinese Civilization". If that is to be the test, I'll have to first ask you to back up the claim that you are trying to assert in the article. Sources are needed for putting or keeping things in an article, not for removing unsourced material or leaving things out. Readin (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Singapore is not a red herring. I can think of reasons for including Taiwan in a Chinese Civilization article, and those reasons also apply to Singapore (and parts of Vietnam). Most of those reasons also apply to Korea and Japan. But I know you are probably struggling for a definition that precisely allows you to include the areas claimed by the PRC while excluding other areas. You haven't found it yet. Keep trying. Readin (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The ROC Constitution and maps claims ROC to be China, which Taiwan is a part of. Korea, Japan, or Vietnam does not claim to be China. T-1000 (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if the ROC Constitution could be considered an unbiased descriptive (it is biased and prescriptive) source, it still doesn't say Taiwan is part of "Chinese Civilization", which is what you have said is the topic of the article. Readin (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We cannot define China as either PRC or ROC due to NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Captain Obvious

Wikipedia promoting a US PoV as an foreign policy tool. I wish I could read Han Chinese to check the article written in that language so that I would have a hope to take a more objective encyclopedic view on the matter. Due to my opinion this article is a disgrace. Even for an anti-communist its rather obvious that when we are reffering to China most people mean PRC otherwise they just say Taiwan.--92.118.191.48 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that "China" should be a simple redirect to the PRC, you are ignoring many arguments by many people over the history of this article. It is most certainly not a US POV issue, the arguments and holdups in the past have been dominated by the views of mainlanders and Taiwanese people. To me, this is a filler article, a bit of fluff put here to pacify both sides and satisfy neither. If the reader wants to learn about the PRC and Taiwan, they would do much better looking at their respective articles, which are pretty good. TastyCakes (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading the Chinese-language articles won't help you. They are just translations from the English versions. The Chinese and Taiwanese editors seem to like it this way. Perhaps it's closer to usage in Chinese. The Republic of France is a redirect to France, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a redirect to Vietnam, and the United States of America is a redirect to United States. It's an established convention to go with the short-form name. Kauffner (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is, but in those articles it's not contentious and complicated in the same way that it is in the PRC and ROC articles. TastyCakes (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sports Again

User:Readin Keeps removing the "For sports in the Republic of China, see Sports in Taiwan" link, but She has provide no proof that there is a Dispute with Taiwan as a part of the Chinese Civilization. She has not responded to my previous post which was:

"Again, China is defined as the Civilization in the article. Do you have sources that say that the majority of the DPP or Greens denies Taiwan or ROC as a part of the Chinese Civilization? Here's a link with Chen Shui Bian saying he is proud to be a Hua ren. http://www.cnd.org/CND-Global/CND-Global.00.4th/CND-Global.00-10-19.html" T-1000 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Quote from Chen:

"a Der Spiegel reporter asked Mr. Chen if he thinks of himself as a Taiwanese or a Chinese. "People on both sides of the strait share a common historical background, blood ties, cultural experience and religious beliefs," Mr. Chen was cited as replying. "We are all important parts of Chinese society (hua ren shehui), so we are honored and proud to be Chinese (hua ren)." T-1000 (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it matters what Chen calls himself. The teams are Chinese in the sense that they compete under the name "Chinese Taipei." Kauffner (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't just speaking for himself. Chen said: "People on both sides of the strait share a common historical background, blood ties, cultural experience and religious beliefs," and "We are all important parts of Chinese society (hua ren shehui), so we are honored and proud to be Chinese (hua ren)." He was speaking for Taiwanese with the term "we", and he can, given that he was democratically elected. T-1000 (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of government, he can speak for the Taiwanese people. But as a matter of POV, that is not necessarily the case. In a democratic election, people vote for a candidate based on a range of issues and based on the limited selection of candidates. The fact that a person was democratically elected does not mean his POV agrees with all the people of the country, or even more than 50% of the country.

As the president of Taiwan, Chen's view is certainly notable. But it does not mean that he speaks for all or even most of Taiwanese. Readin (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, do you have any sources that a majority of Taiwanese disagree with Chen? He was reelected in 2004. Or even any sources that say DPP denies Taiwan/ROC as part of Chinese Civilzation? Until you provide sources that say DPP denies being a part of Chinese Civilization, it is just original research on your part. T-1000 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to add information without a source. If I include a link to "Sports in Brutopia", can you find a reliable source saying this information is disputed? Readin (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Add information? This article has always defined China as the Civilization and have always contained information on the ROC. You claimed that the DPP disputes that ROC is part of Chinese Civilization, but you've provided no actual sources from the DPP itself. You are trying to remove information without a source. If you have source showing from the DPP showing that they say ROC isn't a part of the Chinese civilization, please share it. T-1000 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources are required for the presence of information, not for the absence of information. Readin (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The absences of this information violates the NPOV policy of treating the ROC as an equal to the PRC, as the ROC also claims mainland China. T-1000 (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We should just remove the reference to the PRC and have links to "Sports in Hong Kong", "Sports in Macau", and "Sports in China". There is no reason to mention the PRC. But that still leaves the question: Where is your reliable source saying Taiwan is part of "Chinese Civilization"? Readin (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, removing Taiwan from the China page would be a NPOV violation with both the CCP and the KMT, so that can't be done. Where's the DPP isn't opposed to including Taiwan in the "Chinese civilization". The "Chinese Civilization" setup is a compromise to all three parties. T-1000 (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Chinese Civilization" setup is a compromise to all three parties. So stick with the compromise and find your sources saying that Taiwan is part of "Chinese Civilization". I can think of reasons to include Taiwan - the writing system for example - but those reasons would also necessitate including places like Korea and Japan - that developed their writing systems from ancient Chinese writing.

Some time back, we did a source stack to see how many sources chose to include Taiwan in "China" and how many did not. We looked at atlases, encyclopedias, etc. As I recall, the sources that had Taiwan outside of China came out slightly ahead. Practically, it was a tie. Readin (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The source is the ROC Constitution, which states Taiwan is a part of China. If you leave the ROC Constitution out, you are violating NPOV. Korea and Japan's constitutions do not claim to be China, there are no NPOV issues with them. What we can compromise upon is find a definition of "China" that is acceptable to the DPP, which is the "Chinese Civilization". T-1000 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if the ROC Constitution could be considered an unbiased descriptive (it is biased and prescriptive) source, it still doesn't say Taiwan is part of "Chinese Civilization", which is what you have said is the topic of the article. Readin (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We can't identify China as the PRC or ROC because the KMT and CCP's POV cancel each other out. The core issue is that Taking Taiwan out would not be acceptable to the KMT and CCP, while leaving Taiwan in would be acceptable to the DPP. NPOV demands that we must represent all three POVs, and the current setup is the only way to do that. T-1000 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to find a way to represent the various POVs without taking sides, but you changed it to take a Chinese nationalist side. Your claim that "leaving Taiwan in would be acceptable to the DPP" is dubious and speculative. Using the definition "Chinese Civilization" you have not provided any reliable sources to support your claim. Using the term "China", as I've already mentioned, I can find sources to show the dispute. If you want to use the term "Chinese Society", perhaps you should propose changing the name of the article or changing the hatnote to your preferred term. Readin (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing Taiwan from China is already taking a side and violating NPOV, only catering to the POV of the DPP and ignoring the POV of the KMT and CCP. Regarding the DPP, I am not speculating. The DPP still abides by the ROC Constitution. They have not revise it or changed the borders. T-1000 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the DPP works within the constitutional framework forced on them by the KMT does not imply that they agree with everything in that constitution. The approach I took was to note that the status of Taiwan is "disputed", but you reverted. What is your proposal to respect all POVs? Readin (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

When DPP say “Taiwan is not part of China”, they are also implying that China = PRC, which is already a violation of NPOV. Thus, if you want to put your dispute thing, it should go on the PRC page. However, since the “Sports in China” page is already violating NPOV by only containing info about Mainland China, HK, and Macau, it can be renamed to “Sports in People’s Republic of China”. The Sports in Taiwan page can be renamed to “Sports in the Republic of China”. There is justification for the Change as the ROC teams competed as the China team prior to the 1970s, thus proving that Sports and the government are linked. Then we could say that the sports pages are linked here because they have “China” in their names, and not because of the claims, thus maintaining neutrality. This is also consistent with how this article explains why the PRC and ROC are here. T-1000 (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent for easier reading) With reference to my statements in the above section, I think T-1000 has made a valid point here as the DPP also considers Taiwan to be part of the Chinese society. Therefore, Taiwan should be included in this article.

Yes, as Readin said above, Wikipedia should mention any major POVs even if they represent less than 50% of the population, and that's commonly the DPP position. But Wikipedia's policy explictly states that any marginal POVs can be ignored altogether. I believe Readin's POV is marginal in this case (since KMT, DPP and CPC seem to all agree on this issue).

As I said in the past Readin's POV is often based on 8% of the Taiwanese society (the "deep-greens"), but she just goes along and pushes her POV everywhere, then accuse others with the major POVs of POV pushing. See Talk: Sinicization and her editing summaries here.--pyl (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pyl has a peculiar POV that "Taiwanese" does not exist and he considers his POV "mainstream" while dismissing other POV as fringe. Nonetheless, about 95% of Taiwan's people identify themselves using the term "Taiwanese" - either as simply "Taiwanese" or as "Taiwanese and Chinese".

As for Pyl's POV that I push a POV that is based on only 8% of Taiwanese society - in truth I often find myself combating the idea that there is only one POV on Taiwan - the POV agreed upon by the KMT and CPC. However, nearly half (about 45%) of Taiwan's people identify themselves as "Taiwanese only", not "Chinese".

I'm not sure where Pyl gets the "8%" number from. In the past he has often trumpeted poll results that show most Taiwanese wanting to maintain the "status quo" rather than declaring independence or unifying with China. However such polls tell us very little as they do not tell us how many of the "status quo" supporters want to maintain that status until they can safely declare independence without threat of Chinese invasion, how many want to maintain status quo until China democratizes and they can safely unify with China, or how many choose "status quo" for some other reason. Readin (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Section on Human Rights?

Why is there no Human Rights section in the article? I hope Wikipedians do know that human rights in China is a big concern... Uyghurs, Tibet, or even the general public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.71.143 (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please just read the first sentence of the article. T-1000 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify T-1000's remark, this article is about China as a civilization, not (The People's Republic of) China as a modern communist state. Human rights concerns are found in the article of the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.241.180 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussing possible war between India and China

Why can't we be friends Geo-Strategic Chessboard: War Between India and China? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=745)

This is an important topic and we should bring it to the attention of readers. I also started a similar discussion in the China page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.218.230 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, again, read the first sentence of the article. Also, the link is dead. T-1000 (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also read WP:CRYSTAL. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

when the people made the great wall, meny people died when making it, so the people beryed the people that died in the great wall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.172.197 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

BLAHHHHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.25.152 (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We agree that this is just a good nominee article only. Too much western interpretation and it floods to the translation as well. (beancube2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.146.119 (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well is it fair that China get's to "well brag" a little and not India's page then ? ?

I dont have a problem with the start of this article stating China as an ancient civilazation or as a leader through some of it's history then....but....They won't let me put stuff like this with India's page. And when I asked the dictators of wikipedia why this is allowed for China's page but not India's page then, one of the answer's that was given to me was to bring this up on the China's page of Disscussion then I think then or maybe something like that here and w then . So now here I am bringing it up then . . . . . 71.105.87.54 (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The status of India is not disputed. Pakistan does not claim to be India. T-1000 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. Why does China get to brag but not India then? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Take it up on the talk page for the India article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The "bragging" you're looking for is probably at the Indus Valley Civilization article. T-1000 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

About the country

Why don't we have table of information about the country (its GDP, population size etc) as seemingly all other countries have? And also. there is not much information on modern China.--Gilisa (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Economic information is on the seperate economy page, seems best this way, keeps things clear.

{{three other uses|the Chinese civilization|the modern political state comprising [[Mainland China]], [[Hong Kong]] and [[Macau]]|People's Republic of China|the modern political state comprising [[Taiwan]], [[Penghu]], [[Kinmen]], and [[Matsu Islands|Matsu]]|Republic of China}}T-1000 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I surfed here to find the size of China. So, many articles on China, but couldn't find the size. What I am missing for China is the Infobox Country. I would suggest that it be introduced on the general page of China or the page for the most modern era. --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, I see by the previous post where to find the infobox. Highly confusing, since the link in the infobox here leads to the History of instead of directly to the People's republic. If you ask me, there needs to be a giant disambiguation page that clarifies, even though it is not very practical. So, my two cents is... that the structure isn't obvious to the reader. --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible collapse in 2100

Perhaps a small section could detail that the different population groups are a problem to the country's development and that certain people (eg George Friedman) said that china could even collapse by it (in 2100) 217.136.156.187 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

you are joking, right ? Polylepsis (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

ROTFLMFAO!Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No way is it going to take that long.

• Corruption and political mismanagement.
• Global Warming hitting just as the aquifers are pumped dry.
• Overinvestment and export dependent economy unable to provide jobs.

There will not be a PRC in 2030. Hcobb (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

While I'm sure most of you know this and the suggestions above are a bit of a joke, please see this article about how Wikipedia is not meant to be a crystal ball. TastyCakes (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Awh, I was about to mention WP:Crystal. Beat me to it. As an aside... it's funny to see how many people are hot to predict the death of global capitalism. After all that's what the collapse of China would cause. Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Listing of Civilizations which Invented Writing

Listing the Indus Valley Civilization as one of those to have invented writing is inaccurate at best. There has never been any proof that what the Indus Valley Civilization is actually writing, and there has actually been a computational linguistic disproof of this (references: [2] and [3]). I do not have the ability to edit this phrase out of the article, but I would appreciate if someone did because it inaccurate at best, and certainly not proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruski86 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Government in Exile

There's a dispute over at Talk:Government in exile over the sovereignity of the ROC, and whether or not it is a gov't in exile. There is also a request for comment for one of the editors involved. More input is needed to resolve this issue, thanks.

Request for comment: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mafia_godfather T-1000 (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction = Mess

The introduction is really a mess. It should be rewritten entirely. Polylepsis (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

a bit new to this.From the article "china was one of the largest and most advanced civilizations for most of the last two millenia, until the 1850s. when it missed the industrial revolution." This claim is very problematic,since the gap between the west and china has started a long time before 1850, or the industrial revolution.Right now I don't have the time to do the research but when the British and probably the Portuguese arrived China was already way behind. Probably the Scientific revolution is the tipping point. I believe this claim has POV motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearfulleader (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is why i don't trust in Wikipedia any more! "China was one of the largest and most advanced civilizations for most of the last two millenia, until the 1850s when it missed the industrial revolution." Where's the facts to back this up? It's a lot in this article tha is pure nonsens! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.203.254 (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Makes it all the more eye-catching since its right at the start of this article. Even without having any facts or references to back up this biased claim, someone has pushed their POV right up wikipedia's nose and has gotten away with a clean chit. Poor quality article, this. Was†ed(Ag@in) _{‡ † ©} 20:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:People's Republic of China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Simplistic view on the gap between china and the west in the last 500 years

a bit new to this.From the article "china was one of the largest and most advanced civilizations for most of the last two millenia, until the 1850s. when it missed the industrial revolution." This claim is very problematic,since the gap between the west and china has started a long time before 1850, or the industrial revolution.Right now I don't have the time to do the research but when the British and probably the Portuguese arrived China was already way behind. Probably the Scientific revolution is the tipping point. I believe this claim has POV motives. About 1850 - In the First Opium War starting in 1839 the Chinese were clearly at a great technological disadvantage. adding citation needed for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearfulleader (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Qing Dynasty was very powerful until the end of the 18th century, and China was and is still regarded as one of the most advanced civilization at that time. It went down from the beginning of the 19th century. So perhaps it's indeed too simplistic to say it "stopped" being an advanced civilization in the 1850s, as it happened more gradually than that. Maybe we could rephrase and write "until the middle of the 19th century" or "from the beginning of the 19th century", or something similar, so as to avoid using a precise date. Laurent (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should find sources clearly describing the decline anytime after the beginning of the 18th century to keep the "until" wording at all. I am being such a pedant only because I suspect this sentence is there to pass a POV'ish message. Fearfulleader (talk)

What POV do you believe that (rather dry factual) statement is trying to convey? Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese, as a nation that sees itself as a country that should always have a central place as a world power (Not unlike other nations), tends to explain it's past failure to keep up with the western world in a simplistic way, or a technical way. The fact is that China lost it's "world history edge" as soon as the qing dynasty cut itself off from other countries, believing Chinese culture is superior, long before the 19th century. The "missed the industrial revolution" together with blaming foreign imperialism is a way the Chinese make sense of their perceived, now almost forgotten, military, technological, and economic failure in the last century, but not a fact.Fearfulleader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

Variables, variables, variables. This is all about different variables over time and space. The idea that there was a generic gap between the Western world and China in the past 500 years seems like a simplistic assessment indeed, if no variables or specifics are mentioned to back up the assertion. For example, in terms of gunpowder technology, nautical technology, mathematics, astronomy and the other sciences, the West saw continual development in all fields, while China experienced very little advancement aside from refinement of already old ideas. There are virtually thousands of examples one could give to prove the point. For example, the flintlock rifle was used in Europe by the 1630s, yet Chinese armies continued to use the matchlock firearm well into the 19th century. Just a tiny example, but there are a mountain of others. If such a statement is to be used in the article, one must provide at least a few examples to demonstrate the point, and specifically state which scholars hold these viewpoints.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The economic standard of living in 18th century Beijing, the wealthiest Chinese city at that time, was less than half that of London or Amsterdam.[4] It was comparable to Milan, one of the poorest large cities in Europe at that time. Already in the 17th century, Newton and Galileo showed that European science was in a whole different league than Chinese science. Kauffner (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

People's vs. Peoples'

Wouldn't the correct English version of People's Republic of China be Peoples' rather than People's. As I understand, plural nouns have the apostrophe after the "s" so it should be s' and not 's.Yongbyong38 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

People's it is. The apostrophe here is used as a possessive i.e. the republic belonging to the people. WHSL ^(Talk) 11:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The apostrophe follows the s in plural possessives only when the plural ends in s. So, for example, while the plural possessive form of kid is kids' , the plural possessive form of child is children's. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

some people don't get what u mean, we are asking about china because we don't know so we would not be able to understand what you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.155.238 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Who? What?--Edward130603 (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the article

I have reverted this edit because the current consensus is that this article is not about China but about the Chinese civilization. If Zonghuo wants to change the scope of the article, he should seek a new consensus here. Laurent (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when has there been consensus to have this article changed to be about Chinese civilization? "China" has multiple definitions. The original text was fine.--Jiang (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote has been saying for more than 2 years that the article is about the Chinese civilization, so I think it's safe to assume there's a consensus about that. Also the article can't be both about the definition of the term "China" and the Chinese civilization. Those are very broad topics that shouldn't be treated in the same article. Laurent (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the definition of China, in which the Chinese civilization features most prominently. Why else would we bother to mention the PRC and ROC prominently in the lead section? This was the consensus when we decided to split the PRC article from the China article back in 2003, and as far as I am aware, there was never any consensus to change this. (If we wan't to delve on consensus here.) But for practical reasons, it doesn't make more sense to say "Chinese civilization is a civilization" instead of "China is a civilization". It makes less sense. The former is just redundant. And we haven't even gone through all the definitions yet. We could very well start this article as with the word "China" and focus exclusively on "Chinese civilization"--Jiang (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently the article is 99% about the civilization. There's just one sentence at the beginning which is about the definition of the term "China". I think we should just start straightaway by introducing the civilization itself as it would make it clear what the article is about and will also avoid any possible PRC/China confusion. If we start with "China is...", the vast majority of readers is going to assume the article is about the PRC.

Moreover, "Chinese civilization" redirects here and so do multiple piped links (i.e. [[China|Chinese civilization]]). The hatnote that has been there for more than two years also indicates that the article is about the civilization. So for all these reasons I still think we should bold "Chinese civilization" in the first sentence. Laurent (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not settled that this article is 100% about the civilization, and the disambiguation at the top and second sentence makes clear that this is not about the PRC. It's been proposed that this article be moved, and that has been repeatedly defeated. "Civilization" is in the definition, so I don't see the confusion.--Jiang (talk)

When I first started editing Wikipedia, the claim was made that the existing concensus was that the article was about the civilization. I don't remember anyone disputing that claim at the time. Attempts were made to reach a new concensus (initiated by me at least once) and the discussion dragged on and on and on (surely you remember) but no new consensus was possible so that default was to stick with the earlier consensus even though not very many people were happy with it. Readin (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not the name of the article, and multiple editors have reverted you. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Would there be any objection if I bold "Chinese civilization" in the first sentence (on top of "China")? This kind of edit is what we should avoid and could avoid by being clear as to what the scope of the article is. Laurent (talk)

03:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well,there's nothing wrong with that edit. china is a country. The sentence "The Chinese civilization is located in a cultural region extending over a large area in East Asia." doesn't make much sense, and talk of the cultural sphere is made in the same section.--Jiang (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that China is a country. The problem comes when we start to define what we mean by "country". China is a country, and that country is formally known as the People's Republic of China. As has been noted many times by many people, "China" is the common name for the PRC. But I know you disagree that this article should be about the PRC. And there are other Chinese nationalists who would also disagree because they want to make every effort to define "China" in such a way that they can include Taiwan. And some of thoese Chinese nationalists would even claim that Taiwan, or rather the "Republic of China" is the legitimate "China". If we can't agree to use the most common meaning for China - the PRC - then perhaps this should go to a dab page. Readin (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A dab page only works when the meanings are mutually exclusive. All definitions overlap. We would otherwise be creating POV forks.--Jiang (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

TAKE OFF THE LOCK ON THIS PAGE!!!!!

I understand there are a lot of political interests that seek to define the scope of the word "China". Far from giving in to these attempts, we should employ common sense when deciding what "China" means. If you watch the news, hear people talk or ask your travel agent to book you a trip to "China", then you will know that the word refers to the People's Republic on the mainland. Taiwan is generally not referred to as China, not even by Taiwanese themselves. This is not the CIA World Factbook, but a collection of human knowledge. Our definitions, too, should reflect this. MAKootage (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from Aleksisfeirvezers, 7 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I am trying to use this information for my social studies project and I need to put it in bibliograpy form and I could not find the editor and the main author of the article about China. Maybe if it is possible You could put that kind of information there. Thank you!

Aleksisfeirvezers (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no main author/editor. See the "history" tab at the top of the article for all the contributors (very very long). Or on the left sidebar, click "cite this page" for an easy cite.  fetchcomms☛ 01:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ROC again

I am starting this discussion to prevent an edit war. Laurent's reasoning for the edits was that people looking for Taiwan would not go to China. However, only half of the ROC page is on Taiwan, so it cannot be assumed that all who goes to the ROC page are looking for Taiwan. Readin, the ROC cannot be described as a previous regime of China, because it still exists in Taiwan. Calling ROC historical would imply that Taiwan is not a part of China, which violates NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

However, only half of the ROC page is on Taiwan, so it cannot be assumed that all who goes to the ROC page are looking for Taiwan. - I think the way Taiwan's articles are organized is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that nobody would type "China" when they are looking for the ROC or Taiwan. They would most likely type "Taiwan" for the modern state officially called "ROC", or "History of the ROC" if they want to know about the history. Your argument that the ROC should be in the hatnote because it used to be in mainland China is not valid either because normally the role of a hatnote is to disambiguate, not to document historical facts or make political points. Otherwise we should also put "Germany" in the France hatnote on the ground that it was part of Germany for 4 years, or "United Kingdrom" in the USA hatnote (all these states still exist, right?). We simply cannot document every historical facts in there, it's not the place for that. Laurent (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Both still use "China" in their national title, your argument is specious. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they still use "China" in their title is not really the point. It's not the aim of a hatnote to list all the articles with shared words in their titles. We only need to do so when there's a potential confusion. However today no one can seriously argue than when users type "China" they are expecting to find "Republic of China", it's not 1949 anymore. Laurent (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If they want to look up China's history from 1912-1945, they would go to the China page first, then go the ROC page. Like I said, you cannot assume everyone who goes to the ROC page is looking for Taiwan. Hence your reasoning for removing the link is invalid. You analogy of Britain/USA is also invalid, as Taiwan never declared independence from ROC, and ROC still claims to be China. T-1000 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

china can not be separated by the government,but an union of its people and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.105.37.118 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, as a frequent wikipedia reader/visitor I find it plain ridiculous too when I search for China to get some facts about this possible emerging superpower instead I'm faced with this page, and reading the discussion arguments against the merge proposal it seems to me there's a political bias given none ever uses China to refer to other "country" than PRC. After all the issue deserves better investigation considering it's the only entry which doesn't follow the standards. In regards to this matter, I don't doubt wikipedia might be suffering manipulation for political expedient to the detriment of facts. That's shameful and really very bad to wikipedia, to the readers, to the knowledge, to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.168.129 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's quite true, I also think the current article is made to please a small minority of Wikipedians to the detriment of the majority of readers. However it would be very difficult to change this situation. In the meantime, all we can do is try to properly inform readers through hatnotes (even that is difficult) so that they don't waste time figuring out where is the article they were expecting (i.e. People's Republic of China). Laurent (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The refusal to let "China" article be about the "People's Republic of China" is one of the most glaring inaccuracies on Wikipedia. Unfortunately some people are still stuck 50 years in the past and want to see the PRC as a clean break from the continuity of Chinese history. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. The current situation is simply outrageous. Virtually every English-language media outlet uses "China" to refer to, well, China; everyone knows exactly what country they mean, and no one would think that they were talking about "Chinese civilization." It's sad that a few blind partisans here seem determined to ignore the fact that no one actually confuses the ROC with "China"; it's infuriating that they've dragged Wikipedia down to their level of willful ignorance.163.1.234.109 (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.116.250 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's too early to say China is PRC because KMT is operating on claimed Chinese territory. The mere fact that KMT exist means you still mention it in the article. If you can't get this fact straight, then you don't know what NPOV stands for.Convenience for commonly used search terms for PRC equals China should not be held at the expense of the reality, brutal, factual information at the present moment. Two states exist, both laying claim to all of China. 72.81.233.92 (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki

{{editsemiprotected}} please add sd:چين

--92.8.202.26 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks! SpigotMap 17:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

China should be redirected to China

China should be redirected to China, not to PRCSlidersv (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What? How do you redirect an article to itself?--Edward130603 (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Edward is right, it is technically impossible. Da Vynci (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

To want location if PRC is not directly related?--12.40.50.1 (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:ProfessorJane

Starting this discussion about User:ProfessorJane. There are at least three POV about the Political status of the ROC, detailed on the political status of Taiwan page. User:ProfessorJane is pushing one of them. This user has also been blocked before as User talk:98.122.100.249, User talk:98.71.6.81, and User talk:74.243.218.94. Opinions on how to deal with this? T-1000 (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've shows ProfessorJane evidence that the ROC's status is disputed by the DPP itself, here: [5], but this user does not listen and keeps blanking the page. T-1000 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

While there are instances I certainly disagree with T-1000, the ProfessorJane user is not here on Wikipedia to engage in consensus building but merely to assert their POV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

SchmuckyTheCat and T-1000 continually try to put pov-ridden information on this page. The page is clearly edited with a biased pov that makes the Republic of China look like it is a subservient territory of the People's Republic of China. This is a direct violation of official Wikipedia policy on Neutral Points of View specifically dictated in WP:NC-CHINA#Political NPOV which clearly states that the "Republic of China must be treated as a sovereign state equal to the People's Republic of China."

The T-1000 has an obvious history of deceptive pov pushing to anyone who would examine his edit history. My edits have all reflected the need to adhere to the official Wikipedia policy as stated above. ProfessorJane

Read Wikipedia's guidelines on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Can you actually address the issue itself? the ROC's status is disputed by the Democratic Progressive Party's chairperson herself. Do you have a response to that? T-1000 (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I missed this discussion and just posted a message on ProfessorJane's talk page. Yes I agree with T-1000, let's assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Then perhaps we could try to actually improve this article (and it needs it) and stop edit warring. Laurent (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Mount Everest

Seems that you have mentioned Mount Everest is in China, I feel thats a wrong fact, it falls within the territories of Nepal

Sanjeev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.21.31 (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's correct. A part of Mount Everest (which is really the article you want to dispute if you have really good reasons) falls within Tingri County in China. Quigley (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So much bull in this article

How can someone claim this?!:

"China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and is regarded as the oldest continuous civilization."

"For centuries, it possessed the most advanced society and economy in the world through successive dynasties"

For large periods of its history, China was no unified country and when it was it was often ruled by foreign dynasties and powers. But anyway, people should be aware that, as one economic historian had it, there are no quarterly adjusted economic numbers for the last two millennia. To act as if these numbers were facts is deeply unprofessional, and either naive or biased. Maddison says that figures before 1750 are guess work and the margin of error in calculating values such as GDP etc. in the late 19th was still 30%. So, in the light of this, what makes people here so cocksure that China was the leading economy for the last 2000 years?

That should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.72.14 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is sad when people making insightful comments without any sources to substantiate them... The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What is even sadder is that the comments are incorrect. Here is a quote fro one of the world greatest historians, WIll Durant.: (vol 1 The Story of Civilization)

"This nation, after three thousand years of grandeur and decay, of repeated deaths and resurrections exhibits today all the physical and mental vitality that we find in its most creative periods.

There are no people in the world more vigorous or more intelligent. No other people so adaptable to circumstance, so resistant to disease, so resilient after disaster and suffering, so trained by history to calm endurance and patient recovery. Imagination cannot describe the possibilities of a civilization mingling the physical, labor and mental resources of such a people with the technological equipment of modern industry. Very probably such wealth will be produced in China as even American has never known and once again, as so often in the past, China will lead the world in luxury and the art of life.

No victory of arms or tyranny of alien finance can long suppress a nation so rich in resources and vitality…… Within a century China will have absorbed and civilised its conquerors and will have learnt all the techniques of … industry..

Roads and communications will give her unity, economy and thrift will give her funds and a strong government will give her order and peace. Every chaos is a transition. In the end disorder cures and balances itself with dictatorship. Old obstacles are roughly cleared away and fresh growth is freed. Revolution, like death and style, is the removal of rubbish, the surgery of the superfluous; it comes only when there are many things ready to die. China has died many times before and many times she has been reborn."

The unsigned somment above using words like cocksure belies an emotional quality unsuited to editing wikipedia. IT certainly does not rise to serious consideration. Macrhino (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Maxmich, 12 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change: a country of "yellow-colored" barbarians located to: a country located

the original text is extremely offensive to folks living in that region. Maxmich (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

why

why not show songthing of now-china? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.120.218.51 (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the civilization. For the modern country commonly known as China, see the People's Republic of China, or if you're looking for it, the Republic of China. The article clearly shows the two states in its intro. --The Taerkasten (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that we are stuck with things this way because both governments claim that there is only one China. If they would both agree that Taiwan is not part of China then we could cleanly split the articles with notes in the Taiwan article about its history as part of China and its history as part of the Japanese empire. Hcobb (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The status quo (there being both PRC and ROC, as well as the claims from both governments) is likely to remain indefinite.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: China is the oldest civilization in the world and invented the first writing system

Are the sources provided enough evidence to back up the claim that China is the oldest civilization in the world and invented writing? I do not believe that these sources provide worldwide consensus on what is the world's oldest civilization. The Taerkasten (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

China has a continuous history of over 10,000 years and it is confirmed by archaeologists that around 8,000 years ago the first system of writing, the ancient Chinese system, was invented, several thousand years earlier than the cuneiform writing of the Babylonians and other Western civilisations in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. This is confirmed and published in peer reviewed archaeology scientific journals so please read the following two sources:

1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6669569.stm

2.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620

66.57.175.88 (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The source does not say that the Chinese civilization is the oldest, consider Sumer and Ancient Egypt, also see cradle of civilization, nor does it say that it was the first system of writing, simply that it is earlier than thought.--The Taerkasten (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The source makes it very clear that it is the oldest system of writing, much earlier than the cuneiform writing used in Sumer and Babylonia, which is the so-called "cradle of civilization" ONLY for Western and Middle Eastern civilizations and NOT ancient China or India who both have their own independently develop civilizations that go back 10,000 years for China and at least 6,000 years for India's ancient civilizations. 71.68.248.56 (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, see the discussion below. As stated, the BBC are just reporting what the Chinese media are stating and nowhere in the source does it explicitly imply or state that it's the oldest system of writing. It does not even mention Sumer, Egypt or Babylon. There are many theories as to which is the oldest system of writing and, since there has been no widespread consensus among historians and scholars that the Chinese system of writing is the oldest, we cannot add it as the oldest.--The Taerkasten (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, consider this (that source was three years ago) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/arts/design/20writing.html?src=twrhp, where the source offers more than one theory, and does not explicitly imply which is the better. Your claim that that fact is published in scientific archaeological journals come from that one source. The BBC reporting from PRC-state media. Again, there is no worldwide consensus on the matter.--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This source from New York Times does not include the most recent archaeological findings showing indisputably that the ancient Chinese writing system was invented at least approximately 9,000 years ago which is far earlier and predates Cuneiform writing in the Sumerian Fertile Crescent by a few thousand years. The Sumerians of Mesopotamia had invented cuneiform at it's earliest around 3300 BC which is still only slightly more than 5,000 years old as opposed to the far older 9,000 year old ancient Chinese writing. In addition, prehistoric Chinese carvings have been found that date back over 30,000 years, providing evidence that civilization in ancient China developed much earlier than in Mesopotamia. I am providing the additional sources showing that ancient China is the oldest civilization in the world and developed around 10,000 years ago much earlier than Sumerians of Mesopotamia in the Fertile Crescent. We know this because the invention of writing could only have occurred when tribal societies organized themselves into a functional "civilization" in order to create a stable and prosperous society where early ancient Chinese or ancient Babylonians would have had the constructive socio-economic environment to begin inventing ways of recording information, aka. writing. Additionally, Sumeria and Babylonia are the earliest civilizations that form the foundation of Western Civilization but in contrast both the ancient Chinese and Pakistan/Indians had earlier systems of writing. The Pakistan/Indians, like the ancient Chinese, had also independently invented writing at around the same time as Mesoptamians at around 5,000 years ago. Please read the following sources:

1.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620

2.) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/18/content_6121225.htm

3.) http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/117261.htm

4.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm

5.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6669569.stm

129.252.80.187 (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source that shows that people in the Middle East invented writing a few thousand years later, after the ancient Chinese, around 4,000 to 5,000 years at most! Please read:

1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/521235.stm

129.252.80.187 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, it does not represent a worldwide consensus on what is the oldest civilization. The first three sources all came from PRC-state media, its reporting what the PRC government is saying. The latter two talk about the Middle East. Again, as I have before mentioned, there are so many theories on the oldest civilization and oldest writing, that there is no definite answer to the question. The sources do not provide a worldwide consensus, which it needs to, in order for the claim to be true. Consider this from the last BBC source "It probably suggests that writing developed independently in at least three places - Egypt, Mesopotamia and Harappa between 3500 BC and 3100 BC." There is no worldwide consensus on the issue.--The Taerkasten (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the sources are not good - they either come from the PRC or have nothing to do with China. "In China: A History" (2009), John Keay writes about the "contentious claim about China's three to four (if not six) thousand years of continuous civilisation". If three to four thousand years is contentious then surely six is, let alone 10,000 years. In the same book, he also describes how the Chinese government "reinterpret" history to make it fits its point of view, and how it neglects or prevents research on archaeological sites that don't fit it. I'm not sure what 129.252.80.187 wants to add to the article but, based on current research, we definitely can't put that the Chinese civilization is older than 3000 or 4000 years. Laurent (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources you mentioned do not include the latest archaelogical evidence. Ancient Chinese civilization must have exist at least a few thousands earlier going back 10,000 years at least in order to allow for the stable socio-economic conditions necessary for people to invent writing. 65.122.168.2 (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In history, we don't "know" that such a claim is definitely true - but I think there is consensus to phrase it something like "China is generally regarded as, or referred to as, the oldest living Civilization". HarunAlRashid (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's already mentioned as "one of the world's oldest continuous civilizations", with sources. Consensus still does not state it is "the" oldest continuous civilization.--The Taerkasten (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But it is, currently the most commonly regarded, as THE oldest. I think more explicit phrasing is appropriate: e.g. "Often referred to as the oldest..." http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=china+oldest+continuous+civilization&btnG=Search+Books HarunAlRashid (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those souces refer to it as "one of the oldest", not "the oldest", although there are those that do. I believe we need to stick to a NPOV, and leave the statement as it is, or some other compromise is offered.--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was offering a compromise?? "Often referred to" or "Regarded by many" - those are plan statements of fact. Type in China and "oldest civilization" into Google Scholar, Google Books, or Google, and you should be able to see that. Why are you so against having such stated on Wikipedia? Do you have a preferred civilization that you personally regard as older? HarunAlRashid (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I never stated any preference for civilizations to be older. And if we were to type in Egypt or Sumer along with "oldest civilization" similar results would come up. China is widely regarded as one of the oldest, some believe the oldest "continuous" civilizations, not necessarily the earliest or oldest, see cradle of civilization. If I misphrased what I said before, I'm sorry, I have no problems with China being listed as being regarded as the oldest continuous civilization, again not the oldest or earliest.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"If I misphrased what I said before, I'm sorry, I have no problems with China being listed as being regarded as the oldest continuous civilization" - Umm, yes, that is what I said. Good, we're agreed then. HarunAlRashid (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Although maybe some other editors may wish to comment, but I think we're sorted.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15

37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And let's not forget good faith and civility in discussions. But I think we've reached an agreement.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The evidence showing ancient China invented the oldest writing system in the world is quite clear, even Mesopotamian writing is only 4,000 to 5,000 years old by comparision. Ancient China is without question both the OLDEST civilization in the world and the oldest and longest CONTINUOUS culture in the world. Take for example, the modern Chinese and Taiwanese people who still worship the ancient Chinese gods whose origins go back thousands of years in the past whereas modern day Greeks and Egyptians no longer worship the ancient gods of Zeus, Ra, or Aton in Mesopotamia. 65.122.168.2 (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

China may lay claim to be the oldest continuous civilization in the world, but not the oldest. As I've stated before, there is no historical, scholar worldwide consensus on the issue. Sumer (Mesopotamia) and Egypt are often considered among the cradles of civilization. It would be pure POV, if we add that (without question) it is the oldest civilization, as there are many theories. Again, see cradle of civilization. None of the sources state that China invented writing. Unless specific sources are provided, which represents hundreds and thousands of years of worldwide consensus, then we cannot say China is the oldest civilization in the world. There are far too many conflicting opinions.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And please remember to assume good faith and remain civil in the discussion. I'm just trying to say there is no right or wrong here, putting China as without a doubt the oldest civilization is most certainly pushing a certain POV, because it is disimissing all other possible claims, which are equally as valid. Take [6], [7], [8], [9] and other such sources, there is no one definite answer. Unless we can reach a comprimise, I don't think we will be in agreement. I believe that the status quo should remain until such time, if ever, as a definite answer to the world's oldest civilization arises.--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What they found were glyphs. Lots of ancient cultures had glyphs: see Vinca symbols, for example, which people in the Balkans have been claiming are the world's oldest writing. Neither of these is demonstrably writing as opposed to proto-writing or s.t. similar. If the Damaidi glyphs resemble early hanzi that is not surprising, since basic hanzi are pictographic in origin and were the product of a continuous culture. But hanzi are not pictographs, and for all we know the Damaidi glyphs were.

As for earliest "civilization", that would depend on how one defines civilization. What we need are WP:RSs that other researchers have accepted the Chinese claims. Remember too that many governments see propaganda value in being "first"--just think of the US-USSR space race. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WRONG - China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and is regarded as the oldest continuous civilization.

kindly substantiate this wild claim: China is one of the world's oldest civilizations and is regarded as the oldest continuous civilization.

it is, to put it politely, so much b.s.

substantiate, or remove

118.90.43.232 (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As a non chinese I am amazed at the apparent jealously motiviating these remarks. China is the oldest living civilization. If one needs substantiation for this, one should get out of the history field.

China has the longest continuous history of any country in the world—3,500 years of written history. And even 3,500 years ago China’s civilization was old!

The above is from Historian.orgMacrhino (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

To 118.90.43.232 (talk),

You are wrong, China's history is indeed confirmed to be the oldest civilisation in the world with a continuous history going back at least 10,000 years ago to the first ancient Chinese city states. Around 8,000 ago the first system of writing, the ancient Chinese system was invented, please read the following two sources:

1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6669569.stm

2.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620

66.57.175.88 (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, the source does not state that it is the oldest civilization in the world, it just says the system of writing is earlier than originally believed. For what is regarded to be the oldest civilizations, see cradle of civilization.--The Taerkasten (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are NOT the "cradle of civilization" for ancient China which developed their own independent civilization beginning with the earliest city-states approximately 10,000 years ago. The source provided shows indisputably that ancient Chinese writing is much older than the cuneiform writing that was used by Sumer or Babylonia. The Middle Eastern civilizations of Sumer and Babylonia in the fertile crescent are the so-called "cradle of civilization" ONLY for Western Europe, the Middle East and Western Asia and Africa but NOT ancient China which developed a far earlier and more ancient civilization around 10,000 years ago. 71.68.248.56 (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The BBC source just reports what Chinese state media are saying. It's not said what other historians think about this theory or whether it is a widely accepted view or not. The BBC country profile indicates that the Chinese civilization is 4000 years old, other sources report anything between 3000 to 6000 years. It's rare that a non-PRC source would say that the Chinese civilization is 10000 years old. Laurent (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do modern politics in the People's Republic of China as the archaeological evidence was studied by archaeologists, not politicians. Quite frankly, the outdated BBC country profile is apparently edited by a different group of people and has NOT been updated to reflect the latest archaeological discoveries showing indisputably that the ancient Chinese invented writing around 9,000 years ago predating 5,000 year old cuneiform of Sumeria and Mesoptamia by at least 4,000 years. The civilization of ancient China is indeed far older than Mesoptamia which was previously accepted as the oldest but now as the new evidence is revealed in archaeological journals more and more people will begin to realize a more accurate version of history. Please read the sources:

1.) http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/620

2.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6669569.stm

3.) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/18/content_6121225.htm

4.) http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/117261.htm

5.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm

129.252.80.187 (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source that shows that people in the Middle East invented writing a few thousand years later, after the ancient Chinese, around 4,000 to 5,000 years at most! Please read:

1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/521235.stm

129.252.80.187 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• • This conversation seems a bit too emotional. It is as if the parties are comming to the conversation already knowing the truth and are seeking evidence to prove it. I suggest that the facts be explored not used as weapons. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe some of us have remained level headed, but I agree that certain elements of the conversation may be a bit strong. I just wished to make clear that worldwide consensus is needed in order for such claims to be substantiated. Although, we have agreed on a compromise in the above conversation. As I said there, too, civility and good faith is needed on both sides.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the last section (Chinese writing is the oldest), this has merit. Everything I've read agrees that China is the world's oldest existing civilization. Think of any other civilization from 1200 BCE: all have fallen but China. (Well, China has fallen too, but put itself back together again.) — kwami (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is probably the oldest existing civilization.--The Taerkasten (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Keeping standard format

The article has disambiguation bullets that note:

• People's Republic of China The People's Republic of China (PRC), established in 1949, commonly known as China...
• Republic of China The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan...

May I suggest adding "established in 1912" for the ROC bullet to keep the two bullets in a common format?

Vandalism

Hello - In the preview for this page from search engines, China is referred to as Chinkville. Please fix. DFS (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Only the search engine can fix that. They must have happened to have crawled the page while it was vandalized. It will be fixed the next time they crawl the page. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks! DFS (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Compare with Libya

Why Libya is written as a country with two government while China as two country? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the argument "give it time and once things settle we can decide what the best way to present this information is" is suitable here, even though in China the "time" may be 50 years, 100 years, or even longer. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think a situation that only emerged in the past month and has been fluid on a day-to-day basis since then is at all comparable to a situation that has stabilized, territorially and diplomatically, for decades. If this were November 1, 1949, Wikipedia would be treating the ROC/PRC very differently, but we do not live in November 1, 1949. -- 160.39.31.104 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Study that Chinese and Asian ancestors came from India, from Africa

I think this should be added. A study was done that from Africa, to India, then to Asian countries, such as China. That Asian and CHinese ancestors came from India. . Here is the link . . http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ancestors-of-Chinese-came-from-India-Study/articleshow/5328596.cms . . . . 71.106.83.19 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UT First of all, the tracks of human migration are not decided yet. Second, there are other haplogroups who are recognized as Chinese or other East Asians are from central Asia. Third, even though East Asians have gone through the Southern Asia continent to East Asia, which means Asians just "passed" by India not "from" India because haplogroups and sub-haplogroups have been changing all the time during the migration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.145.0 (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want, track every people (Pacific Islanders, Aborigines, Asians, Eurupeans, Arabians, etc.) to Africa. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Cathay

The word "Cathay" is first recorded in English in 1565, so it actually appears later than "China" does (1555). These dates don't really tell us anything about when people in England found out about China, but only when Europeans started writing about geography in English. Both words appear earlier in Marco Polo's writing, which was published around 1300 but available only in French and Latin. Kauffner (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Chung Kuo

Chung-kuo is the the Wade-Giles romanization of the Chinese word for China. Now Chung-kuo, Chung-Kuo, Chungkuo, and Chung Kuo all redirect China and there is a disambiguation page Chung Kuo (disambiguation). I added a disambiguation hatnote to China but it was removed (see this and this). I think that the question is whether Chung Kuo and its varieties should redirect China or be a disambiguation page. To me, both solutions are fine. But if you want to remove the disambiguation hatnote from here, you should change Chung Kuo to a disambiguation page (move Chung Kuo (disambiguation) to Chung Kuo) first. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Geography

The paragraph on China's geography states that it stretches from North Korea to Viet Nam but this Wikipedia link: [10] shows that it stretches north of North Korea. A large part of it seems to stretch from Mongolia to not only Viet Nam but also to Myanmar (or do you prefer the traditional name, Burma?), Bhutan, Nepal,and Pakistan. I don't know how to enable cookies to I can't change it myself. Also, according to the Wikipedia entry on Heilongjiang province of China, it's located north of Korea and the country north of it is Russia. Here's a link that shows a nice map of China on the first page of a PowerPoint presentation, but I don't know if you consider it a reliable source: [11]

It's hard for a lay person like myself to know if this is disputed territory like Tibet and Taiwan or not, so I leave it up to your editors to decide what to do about this if anything.

Thank you for your work to make Wikipedia so informative and helpful to so many. 99.147.168.38 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Activadvocate

I would rather the sentence be deleted, because the number of bordering nations and range in longitude and latitude (Paracel, Spratly, Outer Mongolia included or no) already speak for the immense size of China. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find the paragraph that 99.147.168.38 talks about. No sentence in this article says that China stretches from North Korea to Viet Nam. Where is it?? --Pengyanan (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

i was looking for People's Republic of China

i was looking for People's Republic of China when i typed china in the search box. Shouldn't wikipedia send readers to that article when someone types china? Syrtis from regnum online 666 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

After all, the C in BRIC means People's Republic of China — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrtis from regnum online 666 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been many discussions on this topic. Redirecting this page to the PRC would violate WP:NPOV. See WP:NC-CHN#Political NPOV. You may want to look through the archives on this talk page for more information.--bTærkast ([[User talk:TaerkastUA|) 15:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Go read the "One China Policy". There is only one China, and the only China that matters is PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I resolutely support comrade 72.81.233.159! The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume both of the last two comments are facetious. Homunculus (duihua) 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, unless they want to drag up risk another POV war again.--bTærkast (Communicate) 17:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In either case, it would be best to read WP:NC-CHN#Political NPOV and realise personal opinions don't/shouldn't factor into Wikipedia articles, and that this issue has been discussed to death.--bTærkast (Communicate) 17:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians have made their rules and processes much more important than anything else. Nowhere is the more evident than in Wikipedia's No China Policy. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem doesn't come from Wikipedia's policies but most likely from the fact that most users here are either from the ROC or ROC-friendly. There's problably next to no PRC users contributing to the China/PRC's pages on Wikipedia (if only because these pages are all blocked in China). So that's why the "ROC = China" POV is being given a massive undue weight on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

so what does it matter that an absolute IDIOT (who also happens to be a sock) started this thread? editors should reserve the right to remove any such similar post in the future. these types of threads now constitute nothing but forums, and hence should not exist. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens. One group of editors decides that the debate about content is over, and tries to shut down comments to the contrary. This is very relevant to Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia. Also, WP:NPA Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

well do you want WP editors to on interminably debating? I am a PRC supporter So long as two states both officially claim to be China, this is a closed issue. Additionally, socks are not allowed to contribute. The sock should have realised that Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa recognise the PRC as the only legitimate government for China, and hence C in BRICS means PRC. A short-sighted idiot, indeed.

WikiLaurent, you would be correct if you said "next to no PRC users...on English Wikipedia". Most articles on Chinese-related (that is, native language=Chinese) topics are much longer on the ZH-WIKI than on EN-WIKI. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The original post that catalyzed this discussion was arguing that China should redirect to PRC. I disagree, not because I'm interested in going to the mat over the ROC, but because the article titled "China" rightly concerns itself with the whole of the region's history, culture, and development, rather than on the political entity that has emerged there in the last six decades. China is no more synonymous with the PRC than mesopotamia is with Iraq.Homunculus (duihua) 03:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are already aware that your comparison is quite absurd. Text from the China article: "The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China". While irak is not commonly known as mesopotamia. A better comparison would be The big bang theory. Does that redirect implies that the big bang theory is fiction, just a tv show?. My guess is that the redirect was made based on what people typing The big bang theory are expecting to find.190.51.168.236 (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pages416, 26 April 2011

In the "History" section of this page, you should also include the Aksumite Empire along with those other great and established civilizations that you've currently listed. Like ancient Egypt and ancient China, ancient Aksum used their own script and minted their own gold coins while being a dominant civilization erecting from modern day Eritrea and stretching from eastern Sudan, northern Ethiopia, western Saudia Arabia and most of modern Yemen. To confirm Aksum's legitimacy, I ask the editor of this page to please look at the wikipedia page for "Aksumite Empire". Here is the link: [[12]] .

Thank you.

Pages416 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't understand what that has to do with this page. The history section contains information about China's history, not the history of other countries. If you there is some specific way that Aksum is related to Chinese history, please post here and change the above template to say "answered=no". Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"China" redirect

Why China doesn't redirect to here? Isn't that biased? In other wikipedia languages the term China redirects to PRC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.110.164 (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Unhappy in SAO PAULO. Just get the PRC to announce that Taiwan is not part of China and we'll fix that right up for you. Hcobb (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't actually help seeing as the ROC nominally claims China. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't make sense since Republic of China (Taiwan) claims all of mainland China (PRC + Outer Mongolia) as ROC national territory.Phead128 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The current situation is that we have two governments who each claim to the legitimate government of all China and that they'll merge at some point in the unknown future. The opposition in Taiwan has called for a split, but they don't set policy. Hcobb (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, China is the PRC, and China is not ROC, for all intents and purposes. However, the main 'China' article talks about China as a continuous civilization, a nation-state, or a cultural unit or identity... so I like the way it is now. It is fine.Phead128 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Political reasons within wikipedia. The redirect should send readers where most readers are expecting to go when typing china. This answer is for the original poster. 190.51.168.236 (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For the last time, this is a NON-ISSUE, and will remain one so long as Taiwan is ruled by a government different from mainland China. Read Chinese naming conventions. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

wikipedians are not a crystal ball and will remain like that as long as wikipedians are not a crystal ball policy is not overthrown by a new consensus. Read wikipedians ain't a crystal ball 190.51.168.236 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I DON'T need IPs to tell me about policy and to talk down to me like that. So long as the benefits of greater cross-strait interaction are apparent, reunification is inevitable. Besides, China has existed in some form for far longer than the PRC. Similarly, the Republic of China had significant history on mainland China before it hopped over to Taiwan. This is another reason why we don't even consider these merges and that this is a NON-ISSUE FOR THE LAST TIME --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

-- extracted from http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=424862903&oldid=424862781 . I moved it here instead of naming conventions because this is not about naming conventions, but about a redirect, something far more specific.

I will just summarize what i said with: The redirect should send readers where most readers are expecting to go when typing china. But i guess wikipedians as well as people in real life tend to stick with the same opinion over and over, mentioning only what favours their opinion, forgetting that the decision shoud be based in a balance of the pro and cons, a balance that is subjective. 190.51.168.236 (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not redirecting to PRC article is correct because it is NEUTRAL and educates English readers who likely are mostly non-Chinese to become aware Two Chinas exist, despite the international lie the Chinese Communists are able to push on UN. Wikipedia is for educational and reference purposes, not political. --Mistakefinder (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, why doesn't Europe redirect to European Union? Hcobb (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Because not all the countries in Europe are in the EU. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that was a rhetorical, sarcastic question. Hehe –HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"So long as the benefits of greater cross-strait interaction are apparent, reunification is inevitable" isn't a crystal ball? According to Wikipedia's ROC article, the majority of the ROC public favors the political status quo and a plurality doesn't identify as Chinese anymore (opting for Taiwanese as an identifier). Most people that search China have very little at stake, and this particular "international lie" (which is being given unduly weight) frankly isn't what they meant to search. China is not unique in the fact that there is a conflict of interest over its name; this is a really weak reason for keeping this bizarre arrangement on Wikipedia. This reminds me of when Iranian nationalists try to push the name Persia onto the Iran article just because Persia "has existed in some form for far longer than" Iran. Oh wait, who do I sound like now? The current article on China gives as much representation of the PRC as the Palestine article does to the State of Palestine article. Unfortunately the rationale being used here is heavily rooted in blind nationalism that's preventing any productive change from taking place. -141.214.17.5 (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your relatively calm tone. Take note here that many of us who support this arrangement are from the PRC, and PRC nationalism would be screaming things like "PRC only!", and as the current state effectively is "Two Chinas" officially/constitutionally vying to be the One China, there is no such thing as a "China nationalist". There was an argument raised at Talk:Persia#Persia and Iran that "as long as the Persian people see themselves as Persians living in Iran...so will the world" that is a good point: many in Taiwan think they are not only Chinese ethnicity, but people of China (中国人). It is not Wikipedia's task to disregard these viewpoints in favour of the retarded Western viewpoint equating China with PRC and Taiwan with ROC. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

How about the non-Persian Arabs who where born in Iran? (At least in English there is a clear distinction between Han and Chinese.) Hcobb (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't see the issue with representing multiple views. However, the fact that both the PRC and ROC are being given this default 50/50 say is where it starts coming across as POV. Most people who do search the topic of China were just not looking for this article (hence why, going through the archives, etc. it's very obvious that this issue hasn't and will not go away). Most English-speaking people do in fact equate China with the PRC. As it already stands, the PRC article mentions Taiwan 4 times and the ROC 2 times in its opening section alone, and the ROC article mentions the PRC twice in its opening section. This nominal dispute is touched on in all of these articles, regardless of which of the three articles you read first. Now throw articles like Political status of Taiwan and History of China into the mix, and now you just have an article on China that is literally just a reiteration of articles that are already in existence, but lacking in its own clear purpose (other than, seemingly, to push the POV that the PRC is not China per se). It is completely redundant and could have whatever little, unique information that it has funneled to other articles easily. Certain sections of this article are rightfully problematic, like the economy section. I'm sure most people that looked up China, interested in learning about its economy, would like a summary of the PRC's economy, no? I'm sure this is a frequently searched topic. Instead this article provides a list of loosely-related links on every Chinese state or dynasty's economy under the sun. Completely unhelpful and hides the information that the majority of these people were looking for behind redirects.

And what about Iranian Arabs..? Getting way off topic and missing the point, but there are many nations already in existence in which the line between ethnicity and nationality is ambiguous (e.g. What about French Algerians? German Turks? Turkish Kurds?). "Iranian" is in fact the Persian word for "Persian" and is equated with a particular ethnicity in Persian language. And I apologize for the long post; I'm not very concise :) -141.214.17.5 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Equating PRC with China will force Wikipedia to take a side on Whether or not Taiwan is a part of the PRC, and we can't do that without violating NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

ROC/PRC order and T-1000's revert of my change and claim of NPOV

User:T-1000 reverted my changes and claimed it was NPOV. How is it NPOV? I only stated the facts and placed founding of ROC first and described briefly. See: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=China&oldid=425969425. Anyone else agree I'm not NPOV? I'll revert his change tomorrow if no objections. --Mistakefinder (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your edits clearly state Two Chinas, this POV is contradicted by both the "One China" and the "One China, One Taiwan" POVs. T-1000 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. "ROC and PRC" or "PRC and ROC" in the section header would be preferred for neutrality. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Prior to my edit, it already says "Two states with name China emerged" with "two states" linking to Two Chinas. So mine isn't any different. Besides, the existence of two Chinas is a fact, not an opinion or POV. But "One China Policy" is a POV of each government, which is presented in its respective articles. --Mistakefinder (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, two Chinese government exists de facto, but we must also maintain NPOV about de jure. The Two Chinas article talks about the two China POV, while clearly stating it is not accepted by the PRC or TI. T-1000 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether the legal status of Taiwan is de jure is unresolved in international law. Where's the Wikipedia policy about NPOV about de jure, or disputed de jure issues? And besides this is irrelevant. As I said, the original article PRIOR to my change already lists the two Chinas. So my improvement to switch to chronological order and add the info about the first Republic in Asia I think is justifiable. Any other thoughts? Mistakefinder (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to state every notable viewpoint. "Two states with name China emerged" is different from your edit, which is "China's territory became divided into Two Chinas." since your edit imply a POV that China = PRC+ROC. I am sure you know the TI POV that Taiwan left China in 1895 and was never given back. Furthermore, The Two Chinas article define it as a Term, while your edits states "Two Chinas" as if it were a fact.

This reply was unsigned. I assume it's by T-1000? I guess "TI" is referring to "Taiwan Independence". Isn't "Two states with name China emerged" stating the fact there are two Chinas? And the "Two Chinas" article is not just defining a term but describing the reality there are two Chinas. And what's wrong with China=PRC+ROC? The Communists conquered territory of the ROC to establish the PRC, so PRC split from ROC as a result of the Civil War, so the ROC became ROC+PRC. I am aware of the TI POV but that seems irrelevant because ROC did get possesion of Taiwan (whether the possession is a separate issue), and is in essence "East China" like PRC being "West China", kind of like North Korea and South Korea (which is Republic of Korea). Make sense?

"The ROC is named China" and "The ROC is China" are two different things, the former is a fact, the latter is a POV. The thing wrong with China = PRC+ROC is that there is a notable POV that Taiwan is not part of China. There is no Korean Independence movement in South Korea. As discussed many times before, to Whom Taiwan belongs to is a disputed issue, The Reds views it as belonging to PRC, the Blues belonging to ROC, the Greens as independent,and that the ROC is a government in exile. Because of the Disputed status of Taiwan, China means different things to different people. And that's why Two Chinas is only a POV. Finally, in the Two Chinas article, it specially said that "One opinion in Taiwan is that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both sovereign, thus forming "two Chinas", so the article does not state that it as a fact. T-1000 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kyletroth, 9 June 2011

There is a grammatical error under Prehistory in the History section. It reads, "Although much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains,[25][26] a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa." This is not a complete sentence. Please change to, "Much controversy persists over the dating of the Liujiang remains[25][26] (a partial skeleton from Minatogawa in Okinawa)."

Kyle Roth. I are wiki 05:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I also moved the references to the end of the sentence and removed the beginning "Much", since I don't think it adds anything. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 11:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

lower case china

Is there a way to create a link for lower case china, as in fine china, to go straight to the disambiguation page or straight to fine china? Right now, lower case china also goes to the Chinese civilization. ContinentalAve (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The software is coded so that 'asdfghjkl' (for example) is wholly equal to 'Asdfghjkl'. There are no re-directs involved, so this cannot be changed. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 14:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to ask the bureaucrats to change the settings on MediaWiki for Wikipedia to do that. Wiktionary allows such distinctions, but Wikipedia does not. I don't think they'll ever change the settings on MediaWiki to allow lowercase/uppercase first letter distinction though, too many people enter only lowercase letters into the searchbox, so too many people would get to the wrong page. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights

This may seem out of place, however having browsed the page I am unable to locate (any) real references to the Chinese Human rights or the lack thereof. Such information would seem to me to be important for persons with little or no knowledge about China as this will inevitably be one of the great issues (politically) for China in the future. I will not add until I have received encourage or discouragement, I presume there is a reason for no addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagpipes1 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if it should be added, it would be in the "People's Republic of China" article, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.137.233 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I accept your point, however is this not just an argument for the comments below? Where the PRC page is merged with this one? (109.149.40.122 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC))

Alternative proposal

Since the registration of the word “China” as a civilization only violate the NPOV-policy, I post here an alternative proposal, even if neither do I support it.

• China → China (civilization, nation, and entity)
• China (disambiguation) → China

as corresponding to the stable version of the article “China”, or

• China → China (large nation, geographical area, and civilization)
• China (disambiguation) → China

as corresponding to the stable version of the article “China”. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Both of those names are really too long. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • They're too long, but at least it does not violate the NPOV-policy. Your proposal violate the NPOV-policy. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
      • How? Lets not forget the current status quo implies the PRC government is illegitimate by having another article at China and that page not even being a disambiguation page - obviously that has POV issues. The PRC is the only major country in the world whose article doesn't sit at its common name. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think I'm being a bit unreasonable here, if post move completion a better name can be come up with for this article I'm OK with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• IMO, and I know it doesn't count for much, it is far more enjoyable and enlightening to be sent to the current China which explains the reasons for the disambiguation, (and may disambuguate more clearly) than to go to a disambiguation page and have the same number of mouse clicks. The current China lead does a perfectly fine job of disambiguation. No need for the move. Cliff (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Clicking China today

It seems, regardless of the topic above, that people keep bringing up the notion that China should bring visitors to People's Republic of China.

Please don't make me read tons of previous discussions to find out why this isn't so. It seems like commons sense that it should be, and I don't like getting entangled in mazes of circular logic.

The vast majority of editors here want this. The vast amount of clicks on China are intended for People's Republic of China. Can't we just do that? Then, all the other hatnote and dab page issues become simple. We're here to serve the visitors, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The matter of concern is not so much on the airy conjectures you have mentioned but the political implications of such a move, which I will not repeat. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 13:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Logically, China should be redirected to the PRC but we have to accommodate the ROC's view, so a disambiguation page would be a comprise for the time being. STSC (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

More importantly we have to accommodate the Chinese civilisations right to the name. If I go to a museum and go to the "China" section they are talking about the civilisation not the PRC. Given that we may as well accommodate the ROC's view as well.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, okay. I didn't consider that. I just kept thinking only that this is an encyclopedia where visitors search what they want to get to and that's it. I didn't realize so much political correctness should influence that. Sorry to bother everyone. I'll just drop it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a limit to how much an encyclopaedia should be made to fit the users. A dictionary can't provide an entry for "embarass" simply because lots of people would be looking for it. By similar logic, it is incorrect to direct China to PRC when there are two sovereign states claiming to represent China. A disambiguation, however, would let the user decide what he is looking for while maintaining the standards of an encyclopaedia, so it seems to me a win-win situation. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Logically "China" should cover all Chinese states that could be called China, as an overview article, while the specific state should be named specifically. All countries should also be done thusly. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, the China page should be set up like the one about China by CIA Factbook; and then it should include a link to the Republic of China (Taiwan) in the lead section. STSC (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should it be like the CIA? The CIA doesn't have a NPOV policy, it follows what the US recognizes: PRC. T-1000 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources also recognize the PRC. While the CIA does not even mention the ROC (but USA sells arms to ROC), we would at least acknowledge the existence of ROC in the China page. STSC (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only that. But the longest existing "modern" China is the ROC. PRC has just celebrated its 60th anniversary, while ROC is on its way to celebrating the 100th anniversary at the end of this year. No matter how long PRC has been around, ROC has been around longer. 100 > 60 you can even stretch it, and say ROC has been around almost twice as long as the PRC. Possibly clicking China should lead to the Republic of China first, because that came first. Benjwong (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We Wiki editors rely on what the sources tell us (Non-neutral but common names). STSC (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well's it's a good thing the that section gave examples, because that sections is clearly talking about offensive terms, not political disputes that Wikipedia is forbidden to take a side in. T-1000 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the section specially refers to "descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors.", and China is clearly not one of them. T-1000 (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The spirit of the guideline is to follow the sources in general. Wikipedia would only reflect China as the common name for the PRC in the sources. STSC (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is also common for sources to use "China" to refer to pre-PRC. "China defeated Japan in 1945", this China is not referring to PRC. T-1000 (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is common for sources to use "France" to refer to pre-French Fifth Republic (1958-present). "Germany defeated France in 1940", this France is not referring to FFR. Quigley (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Those examples given were used in a historical context; it's undeniable that China commonly refers to the PRC and rarely refers to the ROC in present days. The reality is the PRC representing China at international level at present, and most of the sources reflect that reality. STSC (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Then it goes back to the beginning point. The ROC still exists, while the France that Germany defeated doesn't anymore. Furthermore, Historical usage is also common. T-1000 (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the validity of arguments for or against China=>PRC, consensus for that idea is muddled at best. A stronger consensus would be needed to make a change with such strong political overtones. The less-dramatic change proposed above would allow us to make some progress on this issue and re-evaluate the consensus for redirecting China to PRC in a less confusing context. If we discuss one major change at a time then we might get somewhere, otherwise we just get a never-ending and chaotic debate. China=>PRC is a distraction from the current proposal. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

See above for some discussion on this. Just to summarise, I don't think the issue of primary topic even arises, because the distinction between this article and one on the PRC, or this and the ROC, are in neither case one of disambiguation, but rather of a subset/superset relationship. The issue of Chinese porcelain vs ROC vs PRC is one of disambiguation, but not this one. What we have is currently an overview article which should have {{main}} links to the various nations who are (strongly POV) claimants to the title China (country) or China (national state), etc.. And it's a very good, NPOV solution. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You can argue its a "subset/superset issue" but the problem is that the term China is commonly used to refer to the PRC in a modern context and the civilisation in an older context, and thus disambiguation is appropriate as there isn't a clear article that our readers expect when they search for China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The article these readers now get to is on exactly the topic they are seeking. If (and I still think this is a disingenious claim) they really didn't know that China existed before the PRC, then the topic is broader than they thought and they have learned something. Hey, didn't they come here for information? That's our whole purpose here.

This article does and should provide information on the PRC, and links to more detailed articles both on the PRC, its history etc., and on other aspects of China, as befits such an immense topic. Andrewa (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to do that then the right way to go about it is to include more history in the PRC article like other modern nation states do (e.g. India) as well as the in depth information about the country which they want to read about. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but this discussion is about this article. Should this article be at China, undisambiguated? I think it's a good topic and correctly named.

Or do you mean that the PRC article should go to this title? Not a chance. Nor should it.

India is a similar controversial discussion which comes up from time to time, but with not quite the same issues, so it's not a good model for what should happen here. Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Trying to claim that moving PRC here would be closed per WP:SNOW is frankly wrong. There is clearly a decent amount of support for it, maybe not enough to gain consensus, but enough to gain "no consensus" at the very least. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that such a requested move would be closed, it obviously wouldn't be as no admin would be stupid courageous enough to do it, but I'm still of the opinion that it should be closed as a waste of time having no chance of succeeding. I could be wrong, I am sometimes (as we saw above). Andrewa (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this before I started a section at the end of the requested move; but I agree with the original post of this thread. There are lots of political arguments floating around, but I still think China should redirect to People's Republic of China. I'm not convinced the "political implications" of such a move are strong enough. A hatnote at the top of the PRC article explaining "China redirects here. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)", should be enough, shouldn't it? We are a modern encyclopedia, and should be going with modern usage of terms (per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_modern_names). Do people actually use the term "China" to refer to the Republic of China? (I thought the common name was "Taiwan".) Sorry if what I just said was really offensive. Mlm42 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I had just given you an example, China in WWII would be referring to ROC. T-1000 (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming everyone who types in "China" will be looking for the PRC article. I'm only claiming that the vast majority of people will be. And that's all that's needed, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Mlm42 (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, The ROC gets 4k and stuff like the Qing Dynasty gets 2k, so those usage are significant as well, there's no "vast majority" . T-1000 (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthurmore, there are still the NPOV issue I mentioned earlier with ROC and Taiwan. The Primary topics pages allows for "occasional exceptions", while NPOV is non-negotiable. T-1000 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what the 4k hits a day for the ROC article means.. it doesn't mean that many people are attempting to get to that article by searching for "China". In fact, there doesn't seem to be very much evidence that a significant proportion of people who search for "China", are in fact looking for the ROC article.. but maybe I'm missing something?

Also, I think the NPOV argument is a little misguided; the policy WP:NPOV is about article content. The policy WP:NAME (and in particular, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)) is about article names. Mlm42 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why I also gave the views of the Qing Dynasty, which is also significant. As for NPOV, Article Titles directly influence article content. Rename PRC to China will still force Wiki to take a POV on whether the ROC is legitimate, and whether Taiwan is a part of China. Also, the graphical name article also allows for "occasional exceptions". T-1000 (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, wait. I still think the article title should be People's Republic of China. I'm just saying that China should redirect (see Wikipedia:Redirect) to the PRC article. This is for navigational reasons, not for political ones. Mlm42 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And I think this should be one of the "occasional exceptions" that Wikipedia:Redirect allows for. T-1000 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

All policies and guidelines allow for exceptions (see WP:IAR), but I'm not convinced that this should be an exception. Mlm42 (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've read a lot about this now. Some guidelines say we should do one thing. Other guidelines say we should do another.

China being about PRC violates NPOV etc. China being about the civilization or going to a dab page violates COMMONNAME etc.

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but shouldn't we discuss which guidelines supersede which? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV > Anything else marked policy > Anything marked guideline. See WP:POLICY. But the thing is that there are WP:NPOV issues with having this article here as it implies the PRC government isn't legitimate, so to an extent the WP:NPOV issues cancel out - especially if we go to a disambiguation page solution as I have suggested. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not convinced that China redirecting to People's Republic of China actually violates NPOV. Is it not true that the vast majority of people who use the term "China", are referring to the PRC? It seems to me that people might be reading a little too much into the situation.. unless there's something I'm not understanding? I understand there is a dispute between the governments, and of the technical usage of the term "China".. but in everyday usage, "China" is relatively unambiguous.. isn't it? Consider the number of English-language news sources who consistently use "China" when referring to the PRC. Mlm42 (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

T-1000's argument from NPOV is this: "Article titles directly influences article content. If PRC and China are merged, then the article can't have information on ROC which implies that ROC is not China." TheFreeloader gave a good response here ("the article Napoleon is about Napoleon Bonaparte doesn't mean that Napoleon III isn't a Napoleon... But in any event, this RM is only about moving the disambiguation page to China."), and my own response is that an article on the PRC can and should cover all of the Chinese dynasties and the ROC because the ROC came before the PRC. Actually, the PRC can even cover the ROC after the founding of the PRC, because of how significant the ROC is to the PRC's politics. Other aspects of T-1000's arguments from NPOV can be seen here, here, and here. Quigley (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And that response is inadequate. There is the issue of what to do with the Post 1949 ROC information. If the Merged China/PRC article doesn't have info on ROC post 1949, that implies that the ROC is no longer in China after 1949, which implies that Taiwan is not part of China. And that's a NPOV violation. T-1000 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A violation of which part of WP:NPOV? I don't see anywhere in WP:NPOV where issues like this is addressed. It's just your own view on what neutrality should mean which says that we need to give equal validity to the PRC and the ROC's claim to being China. WP:DUE on the contrary says that we should not necessarily treat all claims in a dispute equal, rather we should weigh the claims in accordance with how reliable sources weigh them. So when in this case reliable sources are most often referring to the PRC when talking about "China", I think it's well justified by WP:NPOV that we give the PRC's claim to being China more weight. I also think Eraserhead is right in saying that it is just as delegitimizing (if not more) to the PRC to make exceptions to our rules to take credit away from them, which is why I have argued from the start that the only way to stay neutral in disputes like this is to make no special exceptions to our naming conventions.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A violation of this Part: "not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"." Merging PRC and China implies it is true that China = PRC. And Wikipedia is not giving equal validity, Wikipedia is silent on the issue of legitimacy. Let the reader form their own opinion about the validity of the claims. And I like said before, Merging PRC and China will still force Wikipedia to take a side on whether Taiwan is part of the PRC or not. T-1000 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I can't find the quote you made from WP:NPOV. As I read WP:DUE it actually says that we should identify the "the best view", in that we need to represent the views in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. So when a great majority of reliable sources aren't afraid to imply that the PRC is China by referring to it as China, Wikipedia shouldn't either. I also think that this implication only exists if one buys into the rhetoric that there is only one China.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is from Five Pillars. Furthermore, sources are clearly split on whether Taiwan is part of PRC or not, so the NPOV issues are still there. T-1000 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And how does calling the PRC "China" say anything about whether Taiwan is part of the PRC?TheFreeloader (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Because if China = PRC, and Taiwan is part of China, the ROC is an illegitimate gov't holding on the PRC land. Or if the ROC is indeed legitimate, then Taiwan is not part of China. T-1000 (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Or the PRC is a China, and the ROC is another one. But even if your (IMO pretty far fetched) implications of referring to the PRC as "China" are true, we are still not implying anything which isn't also implied by a large majority of reliable sources using the term "China".TheFreeloader (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Even though the majority of sources refer to PRC as China, they disagree on whether or not this "China" includes Taiwan. For some sources yes, for others no. It is impossible to both include and exclude Taiwan from an merged China/PRC article. The solution was to separate out the China/Taiwan/PRC/ROC articles. This way, everything can be about de facto control. Nothing about Legitimacy or sovereignty. legitimacy and sovereignty are inherently POV, but de facto control can never be disputed, and thus is neutral. That's why the current setup works. T-1000 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I just don't think that sources are trying to send a message about whether the ROC is legitimately governing Taiwan when they use the name "China" for the PRC. So I don't know why Wikipedia should be interpreted to send any messages when it does the same. I don't think we should be that paranoid about what using the term "China" might imply, when reliable sources aren't. I mean Encyclopedia Britannica aren't worried about using "China" as the name of their on the PRC[13], and I don't think they want to imply anything about the ROC being illegitimate.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have a NPOV policy. T-1000 (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So you think that means they want to imply that the ROC is illegitimate?TheFreeloader (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain only recognizes PRC, right? T-1000 (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The company publishing the Encyclopedia Britannica is headquartered in Chicago and the articles are written by independent academics mainly from American universities. I have quite a hard time imagining they should want to appear to carry any sort of bias.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

US doesn't recognize ROC either. Hard to imagine American universities going against what the US recognize. T-1000 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

T-1000, that's not hard to imagine. And your claim that Encyclopedia Britannica is biased is pretty far fetched.. for example, they have an article on Taiwan, which seems pretty neutral to me. Your entire NPOV argument doesn't seem to hold much water. Mlm42 (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is not neutral, nor does it claim to be. A example would be it's statement "In 1945 Taiwan reverted to China," and this statement is clearly disputed by the Taiwan independence people. T-1000 (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. that sentence is talking about Taiwan no longer being under Japanese rule.. its meaning is ambiguous. Mlm42 (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are other examples, another one is on Britannica's China page, where it said "The island province of Taiwan", and whether Taiwan is a province or a country is clearly disputed. Like I said, Britannica never claims to be neutral. T-1000 (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The arguments that Quigley listed were all arguments for not naming the PRC article "China". I agree with this reasoning. But these are not arguments against redirecting the term "China" to the PRC article. To refute a redirect, one should be demonstrating that a significant enough proportion of English-language reliable sources use the term "China" to refer to something other than the PRC. While this may be the case, it hasn't been demonstrated that enough sources exist..

For example, search Google News for "China", and count how many don't mean the PRC. I'm no expert, but I couldn't find a single one. Mlm42 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting China to PRC still implies that PRC is the only legitimate China, which violates NPOV. I don't still what the problem is. NPOV supersedes any other policy, and the redirect page allows "occasional exceptions" like I said. Furthurmore, your search results are biased since they don't take historical usage into account. T-1000 (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Redirecting China to PRC still implies that PRC is the only legitimate China". I disagree. All it implies is that most people who search for "China" are looking for the PRC article. See for example Wikipedia:RNEUTRAL#Neutrality_of_redirects. Mlm42 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Another way of demonstrating how widespread the usage is, is to search Google News for China and Taiwan. These sources are using the terms "China" and "Taiwan" to discuss two different countries. At Wikipedia we are not supposed engage in debates about whether or not there are two countries; but rather to reflect what the reliable sources say (per WP:NPOV). Mlm42 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As discussed here [14], Google searches are not really valid evidence to begin with, since they could be biased or skewed (Like not taking Historic usage into account). This is the case of reliable sources conflicting each other. Countries' recognition are reliable sources, while most recognize the PRC, some recognize the ROC. Furthermore, reliable sources also differ on whether Taiwan is part of PRC or not. So the NPOV issues are unavoidable. T-1000 (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be avoiding my main point, which is that the majority of people who search for "China" are in fact looking for the PRC article. Do you agree, or disagree with this? Mlm42 (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But NPOV supersedes common name. T-1000 (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So we only disagree on the NPOV thing then. Mlm42 (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That you couldn't find a single result mentioning 'China' that does not have to refer to the PRC indeed shows you are not even 10% of an "expert". Already on the first page, I am seeing such results, especially with the phrase "in China", which could be about the land/area/civilisation or the PRC. This has a parallel case in 'New Taipei, Taiwan', for example. Here, Taiwan could mean either the island or the ROC. Based on these two very common cases alone, the case for PRC being the clear primary topic (which is the requirement, I believe) has already failed. I haven't even mentioned historical contexts. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 02:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that comment was directed at me. Yes, some results were ambiguous, but I couldn't find any that definitely did not mean the PRC. I'm not sure which "two very common cases" you're talking about.. Taiwan vs. ROC is not analogous to China vs. PRC, because "China" isn't a precisely defined geographical region.

My point is that among the topics listed in China (disambiguation), when readers search for "China", they are trying to find the modern state, PRC, more often than all other topics combined (which is the requirement in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Of course there is a dispute about whether the PRC includes Taiwan or not, but that's explained in the PRC article. Mlm42 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course you didn't find (nearly) any results that could not at all mean the PRC. My first point still stands: 'China', even in a modern context, does not have to refer to a state. And by the way, I told you two "very common cases": "X in China", and the other is "Y, China". 2) I was not saying that China vs. PRC is completely analogous to Taiwan vs. ROC. I was only using the locator concept ("Z in Taiwan" or "AA, Taiwan") as my parallel. 3)
..."China" isn't a precisely defined geographical region—Perhaps the single greatest reason not to convert to a redirect or move. 4) Again, airy conjectures with no evidence. And even then, WP:RECENTIST will probably work against your cause, because it does not have to be used as an exception in favour of your cause, and historically, the previous China's carry far more weight. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In two minutes first hit on the Economist. And then there is the exam board thing I've linked elsewhere. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes to About box

The about message has been changed from "This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the state commonly known as China, see People's Republic of China. For the state commonly known as Taiwan, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." to "This article is about the Chinese civilization, nation and entity. For the state commonly known as China, see People's Republic of China. For the state commonly known as Taiwan, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." Given this article isn't about either nation that has been commonly referred to as China at any point in the last century this new text seems likely to confuse our readers even more than the original text did. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

“Given this article isn't about either nation ...” - nonsense: unfounded, unsourced, etc. The article clear reads “China (Listeni/ˈtʃaɪnə/) is seen variously as an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and a multinational entity...” ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Then they can read it in the article itself. Adding it to the hatnote just makes it more confusing for people who come to this article and expect to be reading about the PRC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? We didn't say it's a state. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nation and state are used interchangeably in common English. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

They are not the same in this context. See the wiktionary entry here. Note meaning #1: "A group of people sharing aspects of language, culture and/or ethnicity". That is clearly what is meant here. LK (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That isn't going to be clear to our readers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

indeed there is a difference between the two words but they are often used interchangably by quality sources. Consider the United Nations. which gives representation to states, not nations. Without looking the words up in a dictionary normal, educated english speakers won't reliably be able to make the distinction you're wanting them to without context. I agree that putting it in the hatnote is confusing. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• So what would we do? Move nation to nation (community of people) and redirect nation to state? Then add a "Nation redirects here. for a kind of community of people, see......"? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• In Nation (disambiguation) it says:

  Nation most commonly refers to the concept of a unified social community.

  Nation may also refer to: A country, .......

Clearly "unified social community" is the primary topic.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because those articles clearly explain what they are about in the lead, so its probably OK. It isn't OK to do here as the word usage isn't clear in common English. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What the Chinese actually think

I've seen a lot of claims made that 'obviously' the people mean the PRC when they use the word 'China', and hence that is the primary topic. However, I don't believe this is true. If you ask someone who is Chinese, what China means, you get a much more nuanced answer. It is variously used, depending on context, to refer to: the region that has historically been Chinese (the PRC, Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong), the people of that region (e.g. "what will become of China?"), the PRC excluding Tibet and Xinjiang, or less commonly the national entity the PRC. When the Chinese wish to refer to the PRC or the government thereof, they usually use the term 'mainland China'. I know this is completely 'original research' on my part, but I just want to throw it out there, that for the Chinese, having 'China' redirect to the PRC is completely inaccurate, and that the current page more accurately captures the nuanced usage of the term 'China' among the Chinese. This is why the Chinese language wikipedia adopts the same set of pages for 中国 and 中华人民共和国. If the Chinese feel that 'China' refers mainly to the PRC, then surely that would occupy the main page. LK (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"For the Chinese, having 'China' redirect to the PRC is completely inaccurate." Well, if that's true, then obviously it shouldn't redirect there; is that really true? I don't know anything about the Chinese Wikipedia, but they may well have different guidelines about article titles and redirects. I certainly don't think we should be drawing conclusions about what all, or even most, Chinese people think based on what the Chinese language Wikipedia does.. Mlm42 (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What Chinese people here in China think is that China is the PRC which includes Hainan, Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, etc. I didn't get any nuanced answers. I got that same answer each time. But anyway, that's still OR. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia has severe underrepresentation of PRC editors, so it's an extremely poor indicator of "what the Chinese actually think". Also, I see no basis in policy for English Wikipedia to defer decisions to "what the Chinese actually think". Quigley (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Darn right. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, I've rarely heard anyone talk about "mainland China". In China (and in the rest of the world), people refer to the PRC and to mainland China as simply "China". Laurent (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Even in Hong Kong when people speak in English in daily conversations, they call the PRC or the mainland simply as China. But on documents it's almost always "mainland China" or "People's Republic of China". In Cantonese, it's always 大陸 or 內地 instead of 中國. 203.198.26.78 (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak is absolutely mistaken here. Not all Chinese, even from the PRC, believe in "One China". Even for those who do, certainly not all of them believe that PRC is the legitimate sovereign state of China. There is much more variance in opinion within the PRC than one might think. Still, I agree with the rest here that what Chinese think about the usage of the word here should not be our top concern. China as used by Westerners almost exclusively refer to the state PRC. And keep in mind that this is not an attempt to redirect China to PRC, but to place a disambiguation on the page. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the English Wikipedia bases naming of its articles on English-language usage(WP:EN). So how Chinese people and sources use the term "China" really isn't that important. We have to stick with how English-language sources use the term, however unnuanced and inaccurate their usage may be to some.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Anna, what the people in the PRC think is that China refers to the PRC including Taiwan. (Just ask them, "Does China include Taiwan?") You'll get a similar answer from people in Taiwan. 'China' is both mainland and Taiwan. Is it appropriate to redirect only to PRC? Significantly, is anyone here who is Chinese arguing that 'China' should redirect to the PRC? LK (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Correct. They do think that. That's what I said.
• Many argue that it's appropriate to redirect China to PRC with hatnotes to other places.
• I'm not sure anymore. I keep changing my mind and I'm getting sucked into this and I want to bail out. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Laurent, you may not be familiar with the term, but most Chinese use the words 大陆, meaning 'mainland', when refering to the PRC. If they were speaking in English, they would use the term Mainland China. LK (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this which is a British history syllabus, it says you can study "China" under Mao. They are an exam board and they don't call the PRC by its "correct" name. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Who can definitively say what "most Chinese people" think? Who are they? People from PRC? People from ROC? People considering themselves ethnically Chinese? What amounts to "most Chinese?" It seems to me it's everybody's guess. I'm ethically Chinese, from Hong Kong. I don't have one single answer. --Tesscass (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What the chinese think is interesting but it does not make decisions here on wikipedia except when explaining chinese words or concepts. What is much more important in this case, as has been repeated many times is what the English language things. It should be quite obvious to a reader of English that "China" is primarily the common name for the "People's Republic of China", it is often used to refer to the area now occupied by the PRC prior to the existance of the PRC, although this is usually qualified, such as "Song dynasty China". It is also sometimes used to refer to the Republic of China. If that isn't obvious then look at prominent English language newspapers. The New York Times for instances has a famously strict manual of style. They write about China everyday and they use an agreed upon language to do so. They do not choose this language randomly but it evolves over time with carefull consideration. Their language reflects common English language although some quirks can be found. Their language also greatly influences how other publications decide on style issues. The New York Times manual of style says this about the word "China":

China, Standing alone, it means the mainland nation. Use the formal name, the People's Republic of China, in texts and direct quotations only.

I'm not suggesting that we generally adopt the New York Times manual of style as our policy but simply provide this as an illustration of what is overwhelmingly typical in English Language sources. The People's Republic of China is the primary topic for "China" any one disputing that should provide some evidence from a quality source. Evidence which is related to Wikipedia policy. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that with the response you worked hard to produce above that you are not trying to adopt the NYT's (or some variant) policy; even the MOS wording is vague...'mainland nation' could refer to mainland China alone, and perhaps they separate China, Hong Kong, and Macau in most cases. Also. see my comment dated UTC 02:32 19 July for why your case falls short. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing we adopt their policy. I'm claiming that their policy is typical and offer it as an example. Maybe sometimes they refer to Hong Kong and Macau separately but that does not make the wording vague. It should be clear that they mean "The People's Republic of China" when they say "China". I don't understand why you think that is vague. They are generally not talking about "Chinese Civilization" and they are never talking about the Republic of China when they use "China". Such is common in English and that should be respected here to avoid confusion.Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I looked at the comment you mention which you claim disproves what I'm saying. Just because an article which uses the word "China" isn't about the PRC government does not mean that it is not about the PRC. PRC means not only the government but the land occupied by that state and its people and includes a whole lot of things peripherally. The argument still stands. Look at the news with the word "China" and you can almost always replace "China" with "PRC". Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The associated press also has a very similar policy as the one described above. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1) It's vague because the "mainland nation" could mean the mainland or the whole of the PRC. 2) Still in many cases you don't have to replace "China" with PRC. Truly only the mentions of "China" that absolutely mean the PRC (i.e. "China angry over...") count. And don't simply use the news...that's recentist, and what policy or guideline ever directed editors to specifically look at only the news? 3) The AP and NYT are both news organisations, so most of their reporting is going to be current events, so of course they have that policy. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 23:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm using the news as an example because they are extremely prolific and publish little explanations of which words they use and why. You are not seriously arguing that what I am saying about english language usage of the word "China" only applies to newspapers are you. If you are not then don't try to make it sound that way. If you pay attention you'll find that plenty of non-newspaper sources treat the word similarly. It isn't recentist. Whether or not a writer happens to include Hong Kong and Macau when they are talking about China is not relevant either, Those are very, very small teritories with somewhat complicated political relationships with the PRC. It is not a requirement of the naming policies that a term have one and only one EXACT meaning. "China" usually includes Hong Kong and Macau but it doesn't always, the same is true for Taiwan. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the time "China" refers to the "PRC" in some fashion. The two terms don't have to mean the exact same thing all the time, Read Primary Topic and other relevant policies. If you want to argue that the PRC is not the primary topic for China then offer some evidence. The real question is not whether its the primary topic but what we should do about it. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of providing links to more sources, we have Encyclopedia Britinnica, which titles their PRC article as "China", and international organizations the PRC is a member of: the UN uses "China" to describe the PRC, the WTO uses "China" to describe the PRC, the G20, which uses "China" to describe the PRC. The difficulty isn't finding sources that use "China" to describe the PRC. The difficult is finding sources that don't do that. Mlm42 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is that given the cases I said above and the lack of numerical evidence that also considers my cases, you can't say that 'China' overwhelmingly refers to the PRC in overall usage, even if it is the primary usage. That is an airy statement which would waste much of your time to prove; so long as you make airy statements I have no interest in arguing with you.

Mlm42, three of your sources right there are international organisations, where China legally is the PRC. They're out of consideration. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 00:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay.. it appears you are discounting newspapers, encyclopedias, and international organizations because they oppose your point of view.. could you name some sources which support your point of view? Mlm42 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Because we haven't seen a single mainstream reference that uses the term China to refer to the RoC. That is much more germane than the reverse question. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There seems to be a rough consensus that the current titling situation is not ideal. However, the consensus on how and if to fix it is far less clear. As suggested, a request for comment should be considered. Kindly, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• China → Chinese civilization
• China (disambiguation) → China

Because China can refer primarily to the current article before 1912, whereas in a more modern context it refers generally to the People's Republic of China, but also to the Republic of China - with all three being listed at the top of the disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Given China's 5000 year old history this is the primary topic for the term in the past, whereas People's Republic of China is generally considered the primary topic for current usage of the term. Additionally the disambiguation link is currently not particularly clear if you want to read about china in the context of fine porcelain.

I want to keep the Republic of China's de-facto status in the current article as a sub-primary topic to reduce the scope of this move request, any issues with that its status with regards to being a primary topic can be sorted out later. Of note while generally disambiguation pages have only one primary topic, it seems to make more sense here to have multiple primary topics to aid the reader. This has also been done at iOS for example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Polling

Comment of note this has spun out from discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political_NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A matter of procedure, it should be Chinese civilisation as in Hong Kong English. Nightw 06:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why Hong Kong English is the variety of English to use here. Chinese civilization, of which the British colonization of Hong Kong is only a short and small part, is not attached to any national variety of English. The civilization article uses the z, and though Chinese civilization was never a full-fledged article, "Chinese civilization" was created and used from 2004, while "Chinese civilisation" was created in 2007, so we should retain the existing variety. Quigley (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. With the current configuation, many articles link to this article ("China") about Chinese civilization when they mean "China" as in the "People's Republic of China". It is definitely correct that Chinese civilization is not the primary topic for current usage of the term, and even the assertion that "this is the primary topic for the term in the past" is shaky, as historical articles refer to past Chinese countries and ruling dynasties at least as often as they refer to China in the ethno-cultural sense. This move will help people clarify what they mean when they say "China", and will help people using semi-automated tools to clear up any ambiguity in the future, while retaining the status quo of not favoring either the PRC or ROC viewpoint about who has primacy over the use of "China". Quigley (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  That would support the first part of the move, but otherwise the rationale that the PRC is what people mean when they link here would favor redirecting the base name to the PRC article and linking the dab page from a hatnote there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Even if China (disambiguation) should be moved to China, the China → Chinese civilization move is definitely incorrect, because China is an article about “civilization, nation, and entity” or “large nation, geographical area, and civilization”. This is a fundamental interpretation of China (“civilization, nation, and entity”) among people in mainland China and Taiwan who negotiate with each other, and without this interpretation, there will be new NPOV-issues. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The primary topic is the nation of China, it's history, civilisation, it's people, etcetera. That's what the current article is about, as it should be. There is only one China. As for what government constitutes China, that's disputed, and it's not for Wikipedia to decide. The hatnotes on the current article effectively make it a disambiguation page anyway, but with context. Most readers searching for "China" are only going to want one of three items: Chinese civilisation, the PRC and the ROC, and they get easy access to them all on that page. A ordinary disambiguation page with links and messy explanations just means they're forced to click more. Nightw 18:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Its not going to be an ordinary disambiguation page. That isn't what's been suggested at all. What's been suggested is making Chinese civilisation, the PRC and the ROC all "primary" topics linked at the top of the list. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment see this for a preliminary example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And how is this a better setup than the current China page, which provides easy redirection through hatnotes and content central to the primary topic? How would readers benefit from ordinary links on an otherwise blank page more than they would from arriving at what is essentially an introductory article for a complex subject? Nightw 18:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, it is currently ambiguous whether editors intend to send readers to the Chinese civilization article or some other (primarily, PRC) use of "China". If [[China]] links to a proper disambiguation page, then editors are forced to clarify whether they mean the PRC, Chinese civilization, or something else. Readers benefit because as a result, less of them will come to the Chinese civilization talk page (as many have done above this discussion) to complain, "why was I sent here when I wanted PRC?" I'm not convinced that Chinese civilization (which is distinct from China the country, by which I mean not only the PRC and the ROC but also the various historical dynasties) is the primary topic for "China". You have asserted this but provided no evidence for it. Quigley (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. By "readers complaining above this discussion" you mean the confirmed sock and the IP who cites in-depth Wikipedia policy? Editors won't be "forced" to disambiguate their links, and they won't bother. The clerks at WP:WPDAB will clean up after them as per usual. And given that this is currently the 34th most linked-to article, that's a battle that won't be won anytime soon. Nightw 19:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

At least with a disambiguation page you have a better chance of cleaning the links up, it makes it clear that they are broken so people can then pick the most sensible one rather than worrying about whether the editor in question wanted to actually link to this article. Additionally making this a disambiguation page aids people using semi-automated and automated tools to resolve the linking issues.

Additionally going straight to a disambiguation page means that other uses of the word china, such as for porcelain become more prominently linked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiprojects Countries, China, Taiwan and Disambiguation notified. Nightw 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. China should remain a valid link target, and the topic discussed in the current China article is a reasonable compromise between the vernacular primary topic People's Republic of China and the political tension resulting from that vernacular usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Struck by JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually frankly the current China article is a mess. The lead is really poor as it attempts to disambiguate the topics without being a disambiguation page. Additionally this change will keep the Republic of China's position. While that article could be removed after completing this move, it could also be quite easily removed before completing it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the lead reads fine. It effectively outlines the issue in a way that this, or any list of links on an otherwise blank page, could never hope to. Nightw 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You could easily take most of the context from the two bullet points and add them to the disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No you can't. Context is established not just through text, but also via wikilinks to articles providing elaborative information to the reader. Under WP:MOSDAB, extra links are forbidden and text is generally restricted to one line per item. Nightw 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think all the extra links are necessary, but I take your point that they do add some value. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per Quigley. Kauffner (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. To me, this serves visitors best:

• China --> Chinese civilization (because that's what the article is about)
• People's Republic of China --> China (because when people click China, 99% of the time they want People's Republic of China)
• Salt and pepper with hatnotes as you see fit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Page hits to People's Republic of China is currently around 10k/day, and China is 13k/day. I'd bet if clicking China went directly to People's Republic of China, then the article on civilization (currently named China) would drop to 2k/day, as visitors hit their mark. As it stands now, the vast majority of people landing on China click the hatnote to People's Republic of China within 5 seconds.

This is not a move request involving the move of the PRC article to China alone, which would most surely be defeated. The reasons for not performing such a move have been discussed to death. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

From the last move discussion in 2008, and the WT:NC-CHINA discussion earlier this week, it seems that that formula is too controversial to gain a solid consensus. The current move proposal is a compromise from that but also an improvement in the way of leading readers to what they are searching for. Quigley (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear. The most sensible course of action if you are pressing for change, even if I do not necessarily support or oppose this proposal. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 01:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The wording on the current China page is that "Two states with the name China", which means China currently is already pretty much a disambiguation page. Moving China (disambiguation) to China is just forcing the user to click one more time which is not helpful. T-1000 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a good overview article that covers all China. No need ot have the disambiguation page here. I think this exact proposal failed recently; and similar move requests have failed many times. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• HXL's figures about readership of the two articles show without a shadow of a doubt that this isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term 'China' and therefore it should be a disambiguation page. Even if we assume that everyone is getting to the right article 13k over 10k isn't enough to make this the primary topic. By any reasonable view recentism doesn't apply as the communists have been in power for 60 years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

*Strong oppose. "China" is the commonest English language name for the world's biggest country and one which will likely overtake the US. You won't disambiguate United States but it could be United States of Britain! Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Above comment is made by a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet so should be ignored. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• The above is a good example of the confusion that having an article of this type at this location creates. The writer takes it for granted that "China" refers to the People's Republic. Kauffner (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• You think that the article at this location caused the writer to take it for granted that "China" refers to the PRC? That's a stretch. Many English-speaking people take it for granted that "China" refers to the PRC -- that's how the effect communication when talking about the PRC, the speaker says "China" and the listener hears "China" and they both assume PRC, even if they don't know that the country's official name is the People's Republic of China. Similarly they use "Taiwan" when they mean (and possibly don't know) RoC. That's the vernacular usage, and would be the primary topic here except for the controversy behind these particular entities. But having an article of this type does not cause any of that resulting confusion (if there is any confusion). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• That's not what I meant. I meant that the writer assumes that an article named "China" must be about the PRC, despite the fact that the nominator explains that this is not the case. Kauffner (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• 99% of the planet assumes article "China" is going to be about PRC, and then they have to click to the right place. I think all rules should be ignored, and we should serve the visitors. Then solve other hatnotes/dabs etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• But everyone seems to forgetting that, especially in the airline industry, 'China' often points only to the mainland, which is not equal to the PRC. As an additional example, the US government does not treat Hong Kong as just another Chinese city. Please quit citing a number without evidence. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 13:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - pretty much sick of this discussion and agreeing mostly with Quigley and Eraserhead. its silly to throw around numbers but it is clear that English uses China to refer to the state, its territory and its population. So we should give them information about that, except the political controversy requires a disambiguation. Sounds like a good compromise to me. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. How is it "clear" that English uses China to refer to the state “PRC”, rather than the entity?
    2. Even if English uses China to refer to the state “PRC”, it is still non-NPOV to limit the article about civilization, nation and entity to civilization only. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - If this move were to set a precedent, then many countries in the world should also have a disambiguation page which is ridiculous. Unless someone lives in a cave in deepest Borneo they know about China and Taiwan being two places (for now at least) - China is the People's Republic of China which is why it has a seat at the United Nations and Taiwan doesn't. There are hundreds more arguments against such a move but linking the keyword "China" to a disambiguation page would make Qin Shihuang turn in his mausoleum. My two RMB's worth ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You realise that the China article isn't about the People's Republic of China... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Before voting please read the article China for Chris' sake: the article doesn't deal with China (the country) at all, but rather with Chinese culture. IMHO the most common meaning for the name 'China' is the de facto and de jure the People's Republic of China. Therefore I'm simply going to choose between two different evils: the current status-quo (which carefully avoids giving the name 'China' to the PRC because "the PRC is an evil dictatorship") and a lesser evil in which the name 'China' becomes a disambiguation page. IMHO his move is merely a step into the right direction. Flamarande (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  I have seen what happens after other similar moves, and I can tell you will happen if this article is renamed Chinese civilization. People who are looking for PRC article will no longer click on it, and it will gradually disappear in the result rankings for "China". So the practical effect is the same making the term "China" lead to the PRC article (assuming that is fact the article that people typing in the term "China" want to read). Kauffner (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody will verify these results in a couple of months/years and make the obvious conclusions; he/she will make a move proposal of 'China' towards 'China (disambiguation)' and 'People's Republic of China' towards 'China'. I already know that I'm going to vote in favour. Flamarande (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been stated repeatedly, the second notion is too controversial to have even a weak consensus. I assure you that that move request simplifying the name will be swiftly defeated as was the case many times in the past (you can go look for yourself). This is good enough of a compromise as it is...anything further will be flagrant violation of policy and a major hassle. Just think how many [[China]] links there are that have a pre-1949 context. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if China (disambiguation) should be moved to China, the China → Chinese civilization move is definitely incorrect, because China is an article about “civilization, nation, and entity” or “large nation, geographical area, and civilization”. This is a fundamental interpretation of China (“civilization, nation, and entity”) among people in mainland China and Taiwan who negotiate with each other, and without this interpretation, there will be new NPOV-issues. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support (replacing my earlier !vote) as an improvement towards the goal, per Kauffner and (I believe) the requester. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  Even if China (disambiguation) should be moved to China, the China → Chinese civilization move is definitely incorrect, because China is an article about “civilization, nation, and entity” or “large nation, geographical area, and civilization”. This is a fundamental interpretation of China (“civilization, nation, and entity”) among people in mainland China and Taiwan who negotiate with each other, and without this interpretation, there will be new NPOV-issues. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  And your support if fully based on your trust on the requester. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I agree with points above that in current vernacular China refers to the PRC. In fact most (if not all) of the citizens of the ROC I have met balk at being called Chinese, and insist that they are actually Taiwanese. At the moment I've seen many times when "China" is linked in a list of countries by wikipedia editors and IP's, a link clearly meant for the PRC. If such links now lead to a disambiguation page, they would be easily picked up on and fixed. In the end, I'm fairly sure that when people search "China" they aren't searching for Chinese civilization. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  But the crucial fact is the current article is NOT an article only about civilization, but “civilization, nation, and entity”:

  Even if China (disambiguation) should be moved to China, the China → Chinese civilization move is definitely incorrect, because China is an article about “civilization, nation, and entity” or “large nation, geographical area, and civilization”. This is a fundamental interpretation of China (“civilization, nation, and entity”) among people in mainland China and Taiwan who negotiate with each other, and without this interpretation, there will be new NPOV-issues. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support At some point a primary topic discussion should happen. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

  Even if China (disambiguation) should be moved to China, the China → Chinese civilization move is definitely incorrect, because China is an article about “civilization, nation, and entity” or “large nation, geographical area, and civilization”. This is a fundamental interpretation of China (“civilization, nation, and entity”) among people in mainland China and Taiwan who negotiate with each other, and without this interpretation, there will be new NPOV-issues. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Where is it from to get silly Idea of making Civilisation stand in for modern Nation. Egypt? [[Greece]?? 1949 is no bright Line for China or 1947 for India. Just admit this Civilisation Arrangement is KMT Propaganda. You hate CCP. Admit. People want to read about China here like all other Nation.203.184.138.131 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support (with reservation). Most of the sources use China as the common name for the PRC. STSC (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but you (and others before you) have apparently misread the proposal, which is to make China a disambiguation page. This won't affect the PRC's article. Nightw 11:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is: I don't support using the current China article solely for Chinese civilization because it's the common name for PRC; and I support the use of a disambiguation page for Wiki readers to choose what they want (including the PRC article). STSC (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Nightw 16:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the very trick the proposal plays - it contains 2 sub-proposal and if you support one you have support both even though your vote is “support with reservation”. When counting, it will be simply seen as a support vote. What's worse, many people haven't realize the issue and support it without any reservation, nonetheless if they had known the importance of the interpretation of China in the Cross-Sea relations, they wouldn't vote “Support”. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Although it doesn't save visitors the extra click to get to what they are probably looking for (PRC), it's a step in the right direction. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think we should support it for simply a “step”. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose to the highest degree. The biggest proponent to refer the PRC as China is due to WP:Common Name but the biggest reason why the PRC article is where is it and the China article is about the Chinese nation since antiquity to the present day is due to an even more important wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. In no way can wikipedia afford to move away from such a core policy as to actually deviate from being a neutral entity by designating the PRC as the sole government of "China". As an overseas Chinese, I am appalled by this suggestion. Such a move has been suggested numerous times before, and repeatedly rejected due to the very reason of this being a huge minefield, and the same outcome should prevail today regardless of the number of votes. And the China article is no precedent when it comes to sensitive topics, especially of divided nations and disputed name usage. Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are also treated in this manner, just as Taiwan and the Republic of China are named as such.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Oppose. I just realised I was too jumpy and misread the proposal. Still, I would prefer the articles remain where they are, for the opening line "China is seen variously as an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and/or a multinational entity." is quite apt and serves its purpose well, and is also a visible reminder that the Chinese civilisation did not end in 1950.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• We are only proposing to move this page on the Chinese nation/civilisation to 'Chinese civilization' and moving the disambiguation page titled 'China' to [[China]]. A move from PRC to [[China]] is NOT in the works here. Please consider this...even though I oppose the move from PRC to China as strongly as you do, I have not voted on this proposal. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 17:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as a first step to getting Wikipedia to recognise what is obviously the primary, unambiguous meaning of "China", i.e., the People's Republic of China. Unfortunately, editors still stuck in the Cold War/Chinese Civil War will block action to rectify that. However, at least one should allow readers to see a DAB page upon typing "China" rather than the mealymouthed gobbledygook ("China is...an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and/or a multinational entity".) they are confronted with now. —  AjaxSmack  22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – Both the PRC and ROC have never agreed to call their shared-past-country as "Chinese civilization". Benjwong (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia care about that? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Support move of [[China (disambiguation)]] to [[China]]. Not sure about the other half of the proposal because "Chinese civilization" seems an inadequate title. --Tesscass (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

  The China → Chinese civilization move is definitely incorrect, because China is an article about “civilization, nation, and entity” or “large nation, geographical area, and civilization”. This is a fundamental interpretation of China (“civilization, nation, and entity”) among people in mainland China and Taiwan who negotiate with each other, and without this interpretation, there will be new NPOV-issues. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  • May be China (civilization) would be more appropriate than [[Chinese civilization]]. --Tesscass (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    • That sound perfectly sensible, but this is really a minor quibble that can be sorted out later between those who are interested. I frankly don't care. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose redirecting PRC to China is not neutral, as it imply the ROC is illegitmate. Therefore, the next best thing is to have China be a general article like the current setup. 159.83.4.148 (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Redirecting the PRC to China is not the proposal. Please read the move request again and reconsider your opposition. Quigley (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• some people here definitely need to read WP:POVTITLE. mgeo talk 09:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• And some people need to remember what this proposal is about or realise the overriding power of consensus. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 13:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Not really needed. PRC can't be here because of NPOV, and it's one click to reach the PRC article. 76.173.173.24 (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC) — 76.173.173.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Redirecting the PRC to China is not the proposal. Please read the move request again and reconsider your opposition. Quigley (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• I presume the opposes like this one will be ignored when the discussion is closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose having a commonly used term like 'China' go to a disambiguation page is unacceptable, especially when there is a good page there now. Commonly used terms only redirect to disambiguation pages if there are several unrelated commonly used meanings for the term (see Compact, for instance). LK (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue is that the current article clearly isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term - see for example the number of opposes that assume that China must be about the PRC only in this move discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Since you agree that there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then according to WP:DISAMBIG, that primary topic (and not a disambiguation) must occupy the page. If the article currently doesn't reflect the primary topic, then the article should be changed accordingly. This is not an argument for replacing the article with a disambiguation page. LK (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
      • There is a primary topic, but its primacy is difficult to measure right now, because "China" is both an article about Chinese civilization (which is not the primary topic, but a compromise for "NPOV") and a de facto disambiguation page. As a result, page hits to People's Republic of China is currently around 10k/day, and China is 13k/day—no clear primary topic, because of the ambiguous dual-use of the current "China" page. Once these different uses are separated by the move request, and the new usage data comes from time, many of these amazing arguments we see here: "[C]licking China should lead to the Republic of China first, because that came first", will crumble in the face of the evidence. Even if you don't agree with me on what the primary topic is, you should agree that this move will help answer the question. Quigley (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not entirely convinced that the PRC is the clear primary topic for the term and it may well be that there is no primary topic for the term China, but what is certainly true is that this page is not clearly the primary topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Both governments say there is only one China, and all world governments adhere to this policy. This article should be about that one China. Rennell435 (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And what "one China" is that? The pre-1912 China? Because basically that's what this article is about. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Er, no it isn't. The article discusses what all world governments recognise as China, its etymology, geography, it traces its history from prehistoric times to the present, explores everything from the climate in Taiwan to the Olympics in Beijing. Just one example: see the difference between the Geography of China and the Geography of the People's Republic of China, or see Palestine and Western Sahara for other cases. Rennell435 (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
      • But even so it still isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. Its hit-count is basically the same as the PRC page, which is what in a modern context is commonly referred to as China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposed name is a poor choice anyway. Just what exactly would the subpages then be called? Geography of Chinese civilization? List of rivers in the Chinese civilization? Nightw 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Those could still be Geography of China and List of rivers in China - as none of those change due to politics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The weather in the one China, not either of the two Chinas.

Actually, they do, since Geography of the People's Republic of China and Geography of the Republic of China are completely different. Geography of China combines both, as this article does. See, for example, this weather map from the central article, which describes precipitation in China, including mainland China and Taiwan. This is the geography of the country China, not the "Chinese civilisation". Nightw 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Geography of the Republic of China is just a list of islands, and frankly its probable that really Geography of the People's Republic of China and Geography of China should be merged. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NC-TW. No they shouldn't. Entirely different topics. You are arguing against the internationally-accepted political ideology that China is a single country. As an example, which article would the climate map of China (pictured, or any other similar map) then be featured on? It would simply be orphaned since our article on the geography of China would have disappeared. Nightw 20:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - It's rather unclear what the exact topics would be in the proposed disambiguation page for China. Please clarify to avoid further misunderstanding. STSC (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The disambiguation page exists now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It would however have the PRC, the ROC (Taiwan) and Chinese civilisation as "common" topics listed at the top. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with "China commonly refers to ROC (Taiwan)" because it just isn't true. What's the exact wording for these "common" topics? STSC (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The harm of that isn't particularly great given you need a disambiguation page anyway to differentiate between the PRC and the civilisation and that avoids having to discuss whether the ROC is worthy as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I support the principle of using a disambiguation page, it must be carefully constructed through consensus, e.g., I would list the ROC (Taiwan) as one of the links but not as a common topic as PRC because it gives the impression that there are two Chinas. STSC (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

... Um, there is. Nightw 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

... No, there isn't. STSC (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipeda doesn't have to stick to officiated fantasies. In reality there are two. In official policy, there is one. And as someone said above, this page effectively describes that theoretical "one China" whilst also being way better at disambiguating than any list of links ever could. Nightw 10:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia can ignore officiated fantasies then there is only one China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Which official doctrine states there is two Chinas? That's the reality (i.e., the objective perspective), not the doctrine. And from your recent comments, your own political POV is now blatantly obvious. Perhaps tone it down a bit? Nightw 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My "political POV" is just following the common names used to describe places. The PRC is known as China and the ROC is known as Taiwan. That's the reality. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion. I suggest the China disambiguation page to be based on the model of Congo disambiguation page. The ROC can be listed with the period of 1911-1972; during that period the ROC was representing China until the PRC took over their UN seat. STSC (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Being in the UN is not a requirement for being a country, so that's definitely POV. T-1000 (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of changes require a consensus, which cannot be achieved if we get off-topic. We can quibble over whether or not there are two Chinas and which came first another day. Wikipedia guidelines clearly call for a disambiguation page in the case of a title being associated with more than one topic. "China" is obviously such a case. Making "China" into a disambiguation page leaves us with the issue of what to do with the article currently at "China". "Chinese civilization" is an unambiguous common English term for the topic. Please limit discussion to comments directly related to this proposal. If you support or oppose the proposal please state clearly. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. My reading of WP:Disambiguation is that a disambiguation page should occupy the main page only if the term commonly refers to several unrelated topics. The situation is here is similar to that at Christianity. There as well, an argument could be made that there are several topics which share the same name, and that a disambiguation page should point to Roman catholic, Protestant, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, etc. However, there is consensus that a coherent concept called 'Christianity' exists, and that it includes these many contentious groups. A similar situation played out at Libertarianism, where some editors argued that only certain groups were 'libertarian' with the others falsely using that name. LK (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is almost always used to refer to the religion as a whole, whereas China is very frequently used to just refer to the People's Republic of China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many evangelicals who would not accept that these groups are Christian: Roman catholics (popists), Eastern Orthodox (who?), Mormons, Universalists, Unitarians, Shakers, etc. Just because a large number (perhaps even a majority) of people do not consider some groups as Christian does not mean that the concept of Christianity does not include these groups. Similarly, just because many use China to refer to PRC does not mean that China does not include what others consider to also be part of China. LK (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

With regards to your first point are any of those views not WP:FRINGE? With regards to the second that's why there is a suggestion of having a disambiguation page. The fact that people use China to just refer to the PRC only shows that this page doesn't meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it doesn't mean the other views are invalid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

regardless of what a few Evangelical Christians think about the term "Christian". The term "China" does not unambiguously refer to the topic of this article, "Chinese civilization". It is normal in English to use the term "China" to refer to other things, especially the PRC. Because of this the reader should be directed to a disambiguation page. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current article, with its existing hatnotes to People's Republic of China, Republic of China and China (disambiguation), does an excellent job of dealing with an awesome collection of POVs. Hard to imagine a better solution, and this proposal certainly ain't it. Andrewa (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Other than this article not meeting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term given the high readership of the People's Republic of China, and this move not changing how the ROC/PRC POV's are handled in any substantial way I completely agree that the current position is a good solution, however those concerns are rather substantial.
    • Disagree strongly re primary topic. China existed long before the PRC, and many things long regarded as typically chinese are alien to the PRC, and many who call themselves and are widely identified as Chinese have and wish no connection with the PRC. Stepping back from the POVs, China is clearly a much more general topic, which includes the PRC as a subset. It's not a matter of disambiguation at all, so the question of primary topic doesn't arise. The distinction between the PRC and Chinese porcelain, for example, is one of disambiguation, but that's a different issue. This point is also discussed below. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry but you can see from the posts above that some users are confused and assume that the PRC must be what this article is about. The PRC is exclusively referred to as China by the media in a modern context, and thus it is a legitimate target for someone clicking on the link China. That the civilisation is important too is true, but it isn't the only primary use case for the word China and thus why a disambiguation page is appropriate. People can quite reasonably click on a link to the word China and either want to read about the civilisation or read about the modern nation state commonly known as China, taking them to a page on the civilisation directly is confusing.
        • Agree with much of this but the last sentence does not follow IMO. And confused? I'm skeptical. Didn't they know that China is older than the PRC? Of course they do. They may not agree with the article name, we already know that some strongly disagree with it for POV reasons and that's not a breach of WP:AGF because they're quite open about it. But that's hardly a confused state of mind, just the opposite. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm sure they know China is older than the PRC, but given that's the article you'd generally expect to find here they are likely to be confused to find that it isn't. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
      • This move request also keeps the POV issues in balance by keeping the ROC's de-facto equal status on Wikipedia intact by giving it a direct link at the top of the disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Agree that weight is not a problem with the proposal, but still think the proposed move is totally unnecessary. What should happen instead is that this article should be developed as an overview article of all of China, the area, civilization and the various states... and ROC will be a very small footnote in all of this, so it's certainly not pandaring to that POV. The weasily lead sentence needs work, for a start. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
          • .See below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If anything the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 'China' is the People's Republic of China due to that being a WP:VITAL article, and the civilisation and the Republic of China not meeting that criteria.
    • Quite apart from the irrelevance of that particular guideline (see above), this suggests that inclusion in the vital article list is one of the key criteria for determining primary topic... has that proposal been discussed? Where? The list doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the current guideline, and should be prominently described there if it's to be used in this way. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • See below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Currently this means that the PRC is almost certainly the only WP:VITAL article not at its common name, although this move request does at least make a small compromise towards that position. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Again, this seems to propose a role for the vital article list not currently documented, or at least not well documented. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • To quote the guideline "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article." - looks pretty clear to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Quite right, not sure how I missed that! There remains the question of the relevance of this guideline. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
          • The relevance of the guideline is that it makes it completely clear that the civilisation page isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name 'China'. The reason I think this move is worthwhile is that if someone links something to China when they mean to link to the PRC we cannot easily change the link to point at the right article. Trying to keep this article here and not use a disambiguation page where it clearly isn't the primary usage of the term seems pretty silly and confusing to our readers who aren't interested in reading about the history of China, but instead want to know about the modern nation state - which after all is the WP:VITAL article.
          • You could make the arguments you have made here about India, but in that case the article at India is primarily about the modern nation state and not about its historical position, and that's how every other country in the world is generally organised - this move request doesn't go to that position, but at least it means the modern nation state is linked with more than a hatnote on an unrelated article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• As someone said above, this article isn't about the history of China. In fact, history is only one section. Have you actually read the article, Eraserhead? And just for the record, Republic of China is as much a vital article as People's Republic of China. So I'm confused with your arguments. Nightw 20:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• No it isn't. Republic of China is not listed at WP:VITAL. And with regards to History yes there is other content here, but it isn't an article about which discussed the modern nation state properly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe you should know educate yourself on the purpose of that list. Read the expanded list. The talk page of every vital article will also indicate its level. See Talk:Republic of China, or the talk page of any other country. What "the modern nation state" constitutes is in dispute, hasn't anyone told you yet? Nightw 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• The purpose of the level 3 WP:VITAL list is to list the 1000 most important articles, and is generally considered the most important level, and its the one linked from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The expanded level 4 list is hardly interesting with regards to countries as it lists every country in the world. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let's try it this way. Go to Talk:Republic of China, read through the topboxes, and then come back and tell me again that "no it isn't" a vital article. Nightw 20:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Its not a vital article because its not on the list. Only 1000 articles are on the list and only 22 countries are listed - its an exclusive group. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Read the purpose of the list, which you've just copy-pasted here presumably without reading it. It's a list of vital articles that have been selected to showcase as the "most vital". It's a sampling. It doesn't mean that all other vital articles are no longer such because they're not on the sampling. See Category:Wikipedia level-3 vital articles and its subcat Category:Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Geography. Do I need to get an editor from WP:1.0 to explain it to you? Nightw 07:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please get an editor from WP:1.0 to explain the matter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Nightw 08:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Republic of China was previously a vital article but is not anymore. In any case, I don't think we should rely on this list for choosing primary topics. They now choose the countries based on the number of English speakers, total population, etc. so plenty of important countries are missing. Laurent (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, but its pretty clear that the PRC is more important in today's world than the ROC. Which the WP:VITAL list shows. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support since we apparently cannot achieve consensus about the primary topic of "China", making China a dab page is what we must do per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That requires moving the article currently at China elsewhere, and Chinese civilization seems like a reasonable descriptive title that meets the principal naming criteria at WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  How did you see that Chinese civilization seems like a reasonable descriptive title? China is an article about “civilization, nation, and entity”, and why don't we use Chinese nation or Chinese entity? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support. I have always hated that China isn't the article about the People's Republic of China, or at least a redirect to it. It's clearly the primary topic for the term "China". I bet that at least 9 out of 10 times when people search for the term "China" they are looking for the article about the PRC. If people want to read about the Republic of China they will write "Taiwan"(which btw wont get them to their intended target either). And if people want to read about the history of the Chinese civiliaztion, they will probably write something "history of Chinese civilization", as it would seem obvious to any outsider that just "China" would(/should) lead them to an article about the PRC. Nowhere in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about article naming does it say anything about that we should take regional politics into account when naming articles. This to me seems like a clear case where trying to please POV editors detracts from the experience for regular readers of the encyclopedia. This suggested move does not fix the problem, but if it can act as a stepping stone to get article naming which is in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, then I am for it.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, Merging PRC and China makes China "just PRC", therefore implying that either the ROC is an illegitmate gov't holding on the PRC land, or (if the ROC is legitmate) Taiwan is not part China. Can you actually address the issues instead of what you hate? T-1000 (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The only issue which there is here to address here is to decide what is the primary topic for the term "China", and I think I addressed that pretty clearly in my comment. Nowhere in the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does it say anything about that we should take regional politics into account when naming articles. The only thing that naming the PRC article "China" would imply is that "China" is the common name for the country, and that the country is the primary topic for the term "China".TheFreeloader (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV policy does not allow us to take sides in disputes. By renaming PRC to China, Wiki automatically saying ROC is not China, which is taking a side in a dispute and violates NPOV. NPOV is non-negotiable. Furthermore, even in common usage, "China" does not refer to just PRC. A common sentence like "China defeated Japan in 1940", China here is not referring to PRC, but ROC. T-1000 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is WP:POVTITLE. Whether or not the evidence is strong enough to meet that is up for debate, given the historic context, but its not a totally invalid position. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already addressed this. That applies to offensive words in descriptive titles, which is not the issue here. Like I said, it's a good thing that the section gave examples to let us know what it is intended for. Furthermore, What China refers to in common usage is dependent on context, and not just PRC. T-1000 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it applies to all sorts of POV issues with the title, no reason it couldn't in theory apply here. If the sources all use a "non-neutral" name then so should we. Of course proving that - especially including the history is harder, but I don't think rejecting it out of hand is reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, what "China" means in sources is dependent on what the Source is talking about. There is no single meaning. T-1000 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I am really not that comfortable with trying to WP:NPOV to titling of articles. I think true neutralities comes from treating all cases according to the same rules (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this situation). But if we are going to try to apply WP:NPOV here, then part of it is also WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE which says that we should not necessarily give equal validity to all sides in a dispute. And if I was going to apply that to this situation, it could mean that we should not necessarily treat the PRC and the ROC's claim to being "China" equally. Rather as most people searching for the term "China" probably are looking for the article about the PRC (and because most reliable sources mentioning the term "China" are referring to the PRC), its claim to being "China" could be given more weight per WP:DUE. But again I have to say that I don't really like trying to apply WP:NPOV to article naming at all. I think a lot of bad decisions come out of it and it makes article titles into a battleground for POV warriors, seeing as judgments over what is neutral and what isn't are pretty much alway based on personal opinions (which I see as tantamount to original research), and seeing as WP:NPOV isn't written with titling of article in mind, which means that neutrality can be interpreted to mean pretty much anything.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Article titles directly influences article content. If PRC and China are merged, then the article can't have information on ROC which implies that ROC is not China. And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows for "occasional exceptions", I think this is one of those cases. T-1000 (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that. Just like the fact that the article Napoleon is about Napoleon Bonaparte doesn't mean that Napoleon III isn't a Napoleon. All it implies is that Napoleon Bonaparte is the primary topic for that term, and the hatnote in the article will clarify that the term may refer to other things. But in any event, this RM is only about moving the disambiguation page to China. So how about we save the discussion about whether the PRC is (or should be) the primary topic for China until the move request for that gets made.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

To use your analogy, Napoleon III never claimed that there is only one Napoleon. T-1000 (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Partial support. Move China to Chinese civilization, and have China redirect to the PRC article. I don't mean to offend anybody, or anything, but it seems to me that the PRC article is in fact the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the search term "China". Mlm42 (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I just want to make clear, that I think having "China" as a disambiguation page is better than the current situation. Mlm42 (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Quigley's view (“China is an article about the civilization only”) is untenable, because claim concerning the ultimate nature of China is often unneutral, so the article says: “China is seen variously as an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and a multinational entity.” The move will violate the NPOV policy, because it considers China only as a civilization. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Um, that's the current position... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The new position will make 'China' a disambiguation page so you can go and view the articles on the PRC, ROC and the civilisation article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
      • But the new position is no longer neutral, in that it tries to limit the connotation of China. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Quite the opposite, it provides direct and equal links to all articles which refer to entities which have been called China in the past century with a direct link to the ROC, PRC and the civilisation article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
          • You've only seen one aspect of the issue, but haven't seen the other. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
          • That is, if the connotation of the current article China to be limit to the Chinese civilization only, the position of Wikipedia will become unneutral. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

            The current connotation of China is “civilization, nation, and entity” or “large nation, geographical area, and civilization”, it should not be limited to “civilization”-only - that's the bottom line, or it won't remain in Political NPOV. So I posted 2 alternative proposals. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as a step in the right direction. Ideally, there should be an article at China; but this article is clearly not it. It is not the primary topic of this. Common usage dictates that China refers overwhelmingly often to the PRC (no, this is not POV, it's just an honest reflection of contemporary English), but that's not something to deal with today. For now, it's sufficient to note that this article in not about China, it's about Chinese civilization, and should be there. For now, using China as a dab is probably the best compromise.
• Also, a note for the closing admin: I beg of you please not to close this with a simple headcount. Consensus is based on policy-driven arguments, not ones driven by people's patriotic views. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Except for a few cases where the numbers are overwhelming, an administrator who determines the results by a tally should not be closing discussions anyway. You may have consensus for this single operation (which will be a big DAB-bing mess), but you will never have anything close to consensus to move PRC to China. And be careful with your statements, such as "this article in not about China" (what China refers to is murky anyway, so you can't say that). —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 18:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I can. Frankly, what "China" refers to in standard, everyday English is not really all that murky at all. The only thing that's murky is the mess of POVs held by various folks who can't accept common English usage. And by the way, making prophecies about what will "never" happen is pretty hazardous business. You may end up surprised what will happen one day. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support only this procedure because the civilisation/land is certainly not the clear primary topic. Neither is the PRC, for that matter, but we should have never touched the latter part in this discussion in the first place. We are all wasting our time doing that here. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 02:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Common (and dastardly incorrect) usage..." See, it's when you use terminology like that that you show you've really got no interest in following our naming conventions at all, only in whatever is "correct" in your POV. I've got some news for you: Wikipedia policy doesn't give a damn what's "correct", it cares what's normal English. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Aside from the incivility of your post, your case fails every time a certain commonplace phrase is used. See below. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 02:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support. It seems likely that a majority of the people who navigate to "China" are looking for the PRC (this is how I stumbled across the article and this discussion); however, it would of course be improper to have "China" redirect to the PRC article due to the vast issues raised above. Nonetheless, having the current article appear under China is confusing for the reader and requires too much attention and investigation to resolve the ambiguity. It seems the best, and indeed only, solution is to move the dab page to "China" and move the current China article to "Chinese civilization" (or a similar name - the appropriateness of "Chinese civilization" can be discussed after the move). —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 19:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If the disambig page was moved to "China", that disambig page would not be treated just as a secondary page like it is now. Every dynasty since Qin has to some degree been called China. The disambig page would just say Qin, formerly referred to as China. Han, formerly referred to as China etc. Repeat, repeat.... The disambig page will look like another version of the Chinese dynasty article. Whereas right now at least the main China concept is presented, and disambig is secondary. Using disambig may cause more confusion. Benjwong (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What I was planning was to link the three most important articles at the top, below that we could have a section called Chinese dynasties which listed all of those, etc. etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - It is very unlikely that this article is the primary topic for the term "China". mgeo talk 09:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per nominator's comment. Pretty much what I always wanted to do - having China exclusively about Chinese civilization when most people are probably searching for PRC (or ROC) seems to me a bizarre arrangement. A disambiguation would serve the purpose and avoid a lot of unnecessary confusion. For example see the Congo page. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Disagree with proposal. I can accept moving China to China (geographical region) (compare with Macedonia), and moving China (disambiguation) to China though. 119.236.9.188 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any agreement on what China constitutes as a geographical region. However I admit I'm unfamiliar with scholarly research in this area. Batjik Syutfu 16:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Wrong. The current state is: China=(civilization, nation, and entity) or China=(large nation, geographical area, and civilization), depending on different articles. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support confusion about name China hasn't existed since 1971. Dalit Llama (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support primary topic. Agathoclea (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a common-sense proposal in line with our naming guidelines, the nom does a good job laying it out. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. France is not a disambiguation page, it is the article on France, all of it, and all of its history; French Fifth Republic is the article on the present French state. So here. This is a bad idea, and would be if the population of Taiwan had risen up and incorporated themselves in the PRC yesterday. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This analogy is faulty. The article on France is primarily about the modern nation state. This article contains very little content on the modern nation state commonly (and pretty much exclusively in English) known as China - the People's Republic of China. While the article on France may contain more history than the article on the People's Republic of China article, the history isn't that article's sole (or even really primary) focus.
  • The reason a disambiguation page is appropriate here is because the historical content is located in this article whereas the modern content is located at People's Republic of China. If we are to make this like other countries articles then we need to merge this article with the People's Republic of China article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@PMAnderson, I don't understand this comment? The article about the modern state known as "France" is located at France. The article about the modern state commonly known as "China" is currently located at People's Republic of China (which is where, I think, "China" should redirect to). The current article China is not about a modern state. Mlm42 (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson must assume this article is about the PRC. Several other editors made the same mistake and also voted "Oppose" on that basis. This type of vote is evidence of just how badly titled the current article is. I can only hope that these votes don't get counted as a reasons to keep the article where it is. Kauffner (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I've thought about this for a while and I think all the discussion above has strengthened my opinion that there is no clear primary topic. As there is no primary topic, the dab page should become the primary topic. In the end, if those opposing are correct then they will not mind the page being moved because they will be able to come back in a few months and say "look, since the dab page was moved to the primary topic, the Chinese civilization article still gets way more page views and is the clear primary topic". Making the dab page the primary topic will let us sort this out completely in a few months. Jenks24 (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• SupportOpposed, rather unequivocally. the PRIMARYTOPIC being this page is so blindingly obvious to me that... well, I'm opposed. Of course there's significant other history here, but that's what hatnotes and the history section of the article is for. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Man, I feel like an idiot. Just goes to show, look before you leap! Eraserhead1's rational is spot on, way above up there.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Ohms law, are you aware that the article currently located at China is not about the modern state commonly known as "China"? That article is located at People's Republic of China. Mlm42 (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

What is the primary topic for the term "China"?

This is obviously a controvertial subject for many people; but WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says:

Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic.

Isn't it true that the primary topic for the term "China", is in fact People's Republic of China? This isn't intended as a political statement, but more about what people are likely to be searching for. Mlm42 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Depend on what people are searching for. If a student wants to do a report on China in WWII, obviously then China refers to ROC. T-1000 (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the guideline asks us to identify which topic they are most likely to be searching for, when they type "China" into the Wikipedia search bar. Mlm42 (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that China can refer to PRC, ROC, and any of the Chinese Dynasty before that, and with important events in each dynasty, don't think you can get one that is "much more likely than any other". It all depends on what the person is thinking when they type it. T-1000 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? The PRC article has about 10k views per day, while the ROC article has about 4k article views per day. The ROC article doesn't list "China" as a common name; and it fact that article acknowledges that "China" more commonly refers to the PRC. Mlm42 (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think your data proves that all of the usages are significant, and that none of them are fringe. T-1000 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And this article has about 12k hits a day. It seems to me like this data points to disambiguation being the right answer as we don't know what people are looking for. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But the hits from this article only indicate that people are searching for "China".. the question is, what do those 12k people a day intend to find? I suspect it's the PRC article, since people commonly refer to that country as "China". Consider the incoming links to this article; I randomly selected some of those incoming links, and all of the ones I saw should have been pointing to People's Republic of China instead. Mlm42 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead, do you propose to rewrite the lead on China after the move? Right now the lead disambiguates very clearly and gives important information about this specific state of affairs between the ROC, and the PRC. Would a disambiguation page disambiguate as clearly? I've never seen a disambiguation as clear as the current lead on the China article. If clarity will be lost, then I oppose the move. If there is some way for a disambiguation page to do so clearly, I'd like to see that before I support the move. Cliff (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The clarity would be because it wouldn't be an article.

Frankly anyone who is a layman doesn't care which particular island groups are controlled by Taiwan, and anyone who isn't a layman will know which article they want. Therefore there is no need to go into as much detail as is done here.

I am happy to re-write this article's lead so that it makes sense. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To give more detail you could say something like:

• Chinese civilisation for the chinese civilisation, history, territory and cultural entity.
• People's Republic of China for the state commonly known as China who have controlled mainland China since 1949 as well as Hong Kong and Macau since the late 1990's.
• Republic of China setup on the Chinese mainland in 1912, but since 1949 have controlled Taiwan and other outlying islands. Now commonly known as Taiwan.

By all means we could change/improve the wording as required. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.