Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/PRC vs ROC

This archive deals with discussions about the naming conventions surrounding the following issues:

• Common name usage of "China" and "Taiwan"
• Where to use "PRC" and "ROC"
• Names of dispute in regards to the Political status of Taiwan

Breaking deadlock

Perhaps breaking the deadlock needs some dynamite. I have no interest in the PRC/ROC problem. I do have an interest in seeing that Wikipedia is the most useful resource it can be. And to this end, having China direct to the article China rather than the People's Republic of China is extremely problematic. Overwhelmingly, in popular use, whether spoken, printed, internet, or on television, in English the word China is used to refer to the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should reflect this.

Yet, Wikipedia should not take a position on whether the PRC or ROC is the legitimate government of the territories of the PRC and ROC. So lets have this. The guideline, as I've reformulated it, states that any time the usage of China may have a political meaning, the PRC or ROC should be explicitly stated.

This is what people have been trying come to for a long time. It may make some uncomfortable to have used China refer to People's Republic of China here, but this is the way things are in real life, and Wikipedia, in WP:NAMING and many other places upholds that it reflects this. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the changes you made to the naming convention are highly contentious, and it appears to me that you are aware of that as well. I think it would be more appropriate to discuss the changes here and get consensus before the actual changes are made.

WP:NAMING you quoted said:-

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

It is established that it is not neutral to assert China as the People's Republic of China. It then follows that redirecting China to the PRC would not be neutral either. This redirect also conflicts with a minor but significant assertion that the Republic of China represents China. China means more than the modern states, and equating China with the PRC is also problematic. I think the notes in the China article is sufficient to get readers to the PRC when that's what they are looking for.

The most common usage may not be the correct usage, and a good encyclopaedia prioritises correctness over commonness. I was told an example and I think it can be offensive, but I can't think of a better example right now so please bear with me. The most common usage of the word 'bitch' refers to an unpleasant person, especially a woman, not the correct literal meaning of a female dog. The article starts with the correct usage then gives all different usages so the readers can get a more global perspective. I think the article China has also done essentially the same things. It explains the different claims to China as well as a general background of China while acknowledging that the most common used meaning for "China" means the PRC. The way things are in real life is, the PRC is part of the long history and complex cultural entity of China. The PRC is also one of the many political entities that represent China in its long history. But the PRC is not all of China.--pyl (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To quote at length from WP:Naming Conflict

Identification of common names using external references

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

• The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
• International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
• Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
• Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
• Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .
• Scientific nomenclature. Check usage by international bodies like CIPM, IUPAP, IUPAC, and other scientific bodies concerned with nomenclature; consider also the national standards agencies NIST and NPL. Consult style guides of scientific journals.

That China is used to refer to the PRC overwhelmingly, and forms the "correct" usage is obvious when every one of these tests is applied. Whenever there is any doubt, or political recognition might be implied, PRC or ROC are used. Why, for the life of me, we can't use the same standard as everyone else is beyond me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Google does not contain every book and source there ever is. It certainly mostly contain English-only sources. Too much emphasis on a search engine. This way is flawed. Please see archive discussions. Benjwong (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The test isn't only limited to online sources. If I take a completely random book from my bookshelf (Reading National Geographic) and see how the word is used, I find that China is used to refer to both pre-1949 China and the PRC. In any other print source you care to name I find "general agreement on the use of [the] name". Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus to make changes you are asking for. I don't understand why you insist on changing the main text before the discussion is complete.--pyl (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I started it, because as far as I could tell, discussion was stalled, and rather than mucking round with discussions for ages, it is often better to be bold, make a change and see if the community works with it.

I believe Wikipedia says that we should be bold until there are issues, then we should discuss instead of being bold. As you clearly were aware they were issues, you still went for bold and insisted on changing stuff before discussion. That's what I didn't understand.--pyl (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I found the discussion from earlier this year (although strangely I didn't find a link from here). The dispute resolution so desperately needed was never engaged in. I don't have the time to engage in opening the process, so I'll have to leave it as is. I'll keep this on watchlist, and if it is ever opened will participate enthusiastically. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This dispute isn't just stalled, it's intractable. It's not just from earlier this year, it's more than five years old. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Mostly Harmless is repeating things I've said multiple times on this page, and Wikipedia policies and guidelines are distinctly at odds with what this page has been deadlocked in saying. The attempt to "gain consensus" to change this page is impossible, for either side. If there is no consensus to reach, then the NPOV section about the wording of "China" should be removed entirely from this text. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

This proposal falls under the same category as the proposal to merge the PRC article into China. I doubt any consensus would be reached. --Joowwww (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO this proposal is much worse than the former proposal. Most references (links) to China here have nothing to do with the PRC so a redirect would be plain confusing--Jiang (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

the NPOV section about the wording of "China" should be removed entirely from this text. I strongly disagree. We need to have some sort of guidelines. What we have isn't deadlocked simply because we can't agree on anything. It's deadlocked because we can't agree that anything is better. The guidelines at very least provide a way to yank the more extreme wordings back to the region of NPOV. If we get rid of the guidelines, the articles may begin thrashing about wildly as people struggle to get their interpretation accepted as the new "concensus". Given the difficulty we've seen of agreeing to anything, the struggle will be conducted mostly through never-ending edit wars. Readin (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK this discussion is so convoluted I've only managed to skim through it but all I will say is this; come on, get a grip and redirect "China" to "The people's Republic of China" already. This is laughable, unhelpful, and damages wikipedia's reputation. A kid searching for China on google does not want to be confused by decades obsolete cold war politics. And besides, Taiwan is Taiwan, it isn't even part of "China". ʄ!•¿talk? 16:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

SmuckyTheCat removed a couple selected sections and did some rewrite. I put them undid them because we don't have consensus on something new. Before we make changes, let's discuss. Do we still have a dispute. What, in particular, is disputed about the section? I'll go first:Readin (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• The section says that we should not refer to Taiwan as part of the "People's Republic of China". We should add that we should not refer to Taiwan as part of "China". We might add that China articles can include information about Taiwan so long as they note that it is not universally accepted that Taiwan is part of China. Readin (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For text to exist in a guideline it needs consensus. This text has never had consensus. We don't need consensus to change it, we need consensus to include it. The "default" or "status quo" is for non-consensus text to stay out. Text with the disputed tag on it for several years needs to go. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

For Readin, Taiwan is part of Republic of China and there is no debate about it, so Taiwan is part of China (Republic of). When people say Taiwan, they may refer to the island Taiwan, or country Republic of China that is now sitting right on Taiwan, or both, there is no consensus about which reference has the absolute prevalence. The current China page is giving good balance and presentatiing a worldwide view from different groups. If we redirect China to the Communist country, it will no longer NPOV. Unless Republic of China is formally change their name to something else, the current China page should remain impartial and not being redirected to either ROC or PRC.--Da Vynci (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is part of the Republic of China, but the Republic of China is no longer in China, it is in exile in Taiwan. Some have a different POV on this. To avoid contradicting the POV that Taiwan is part of China, we have a guideline that says "Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation". But that is not the only POV that needs to be included. Readin (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And by denying the proper and correct use of Taiwan and China Wikipedia makes a fool of itself. I'm truly glad that healthy common sense and accuracy won over political correctness and hipocrisy in the Kosovo-article at least. We really should follow this example one of these days. Flamarande (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China, yet does not address whether they are considered separate nations." because it is not a guideline (does not tell editors what to do) and uses political terms with ambiguous meanings that blunt the effectiveness of the sentence. The difference between a state and a nation is not clear.

Edited "Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation, as a part of the People's Republic of China, or as part of China." because it is partly contradicted by its succeeding sentence if the meaning of nation is to be taken broadly.--Jiang (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I put back some of the good stuff and tried to address Jiang's concerns that the guide actually say what the text should do.

I disagree with the concerns about the words "nation" and "state". I agree that the word "nation" is indeed ambiguous, but we've had concensus for describing the ROC as a state for a very long time because the word "state" is pretty well-accepted as (quoting Merriam Webster) "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory". The ROC as a political body occupying defined territory is not disputed.

One of the main reasons we say we shouldn't make claims whether PRC and ROC are separate nations is because of what Jiang rightly points out, the meaning of "nation" is rather vague. Some equate it with politics, others with culture or race, still others with regions, and still others with shared history, and most with some combination of those. It is right that we should warn against using these vague terms to describe the PRC and ROC. Perhaps we should put "nation" in quotes on the page to indicate we are warning against the term rather than any and all concepts associated with it.Readin (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to have ended. I'm going to try removing the "disputed" tag to see if anyone still disputes. Readin (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei put the tag back but beyond asking "Since when did the dispute cease?", provided no explanation. I put a message on his web page asking about this. Readin (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The tag is needed because a)there is a dispute, b)the current use of the names 'China' and 'Taiwan' is not followed because of dubious reasons, and c)the reasoning behind the current status-quo is AFAIK not an official Wiki-policy. I also wish to remark that you had removed the tag previously before and the situation was explained to you already. Flamarande (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Addressing your points:

• a)there is a dispute - That's what I was trying to find out. We made changes. We fixed problems. No one seemed to be disputing anymore. If there is no longer a dispute we shouldn't keep the tag. If someone still disputes, that person should tell us what they dispute.
• b)the current use of the names 'China' and 'Taiwan' is not followed because of dubious reasons - I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Where are the names 'China' and 'Taiwan' not being followed? And what reasons do you consider dubious?
• c)the reasoning behind the current status-quo is AFAIK not an official Wiki-policy - What is "AFAIK"? NPOV is an official Wiki-policy and perhaps along with verifiability the most central. What specifically do you see as a problem? What specifically do you believe violates official Wiki-policy?

I also wish to remark that you had removed the tag previously before and the situation was explained to you already. And there was productive discussion that followed and improvements were made. I had hoped that the improvements were enough to remove the dispute. It seems that you and Huawei disagree. But your disagreements need to be specific for them to be addressed. Readin (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

a)Your changes are sadly by far not enough. A far better example would be the article Kosovo (especially its name).

b)Type 'China' or 'Taiwan' and what will you end up with? The first is an article about 'Chinese culture' and the second is about the island. Both articles simply disregard the current use of the two names in common speech, international English-speaking media, and encyclopaedias written in the English language, and last but not least use in international organizations like the UNO.

c)NPOV is not being disputed here. What is disputed is the policy that appears inside of 'Naming conventions (Chinese)'. 'Kosovo' follows NPOV. 'China' or 'Taiwan' don't follow NPOV. They follow 'Naming conventions (Chinese)'. Said policy is not an official Wiki-policy.

'Naming conventions (Chinese)' is widely disregarded anyway exception made for the name of the articles. Userboxes, wiki-projects, and most articles follow common sense. The names of the two articles should follow common sense too. Flamarande (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Kosovo article defines Kosovo as a "region". The China article begins similarly "China is a cultural region, an ancient civilization, and, depending on perspective, a national or multinational entity extending over a large area in East Asia."

I agree with you that the Taiwan article is more of a problem because in common usage Taiwan generally refers to more than just the main island. I've tried to address that on the Talk:Taiwan page without much luck. However, the section you're disputing doesn't say anything about whether the Taiwan article should be about the island or about more than that.Readin (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But the Kosovo article uses the common name for the country/renegade province/whatever, and the article is about the current political entity (de facto about the partially recognized country). The use of the two names ('China' and 'Taiwan') is 99% of the problem. 'China' should be an article about the PRC (the current country). 'Taiwan' should be about the ROC (the current country). Relevant issues should be explained inside of the two articles, simple as that.

1)In the English language when someone speaks about "China" he is talking about the country (PRC). When someone is speaking about "Taiwan" he is talking the ROC. Fact

2)The same happens in the English-speaking media (TV - CNN, BBC, Sky News, NBC, etc, ad nauseam). This is also the case with newspapers and magazines e.g.: The Economist's number of September has two main articles which refer to "China" and they do mean the PRC. Similar articles exist about Taiwan (and they do mean the ROC) Fact

3)The overwhelming majority of international organizations use the name 'China' for the PRC (it begins with the UNO, the G8+5, etc). Look for the little name-cards upon the tables; the representative from Beijing (i.e.: representing the government of the PRC) gets the one with the name "China" upon it. An example of this can be found here. Fact Taiwan's unclear status is known to us all and shouldn't hinder us as Kosovo clearly shows.

4)In international events, like the Olympic Games, the representatives of the PRC receive the name-tag "China". this can be seen here. Fact Again: Taiwan's unclear status is known to us all and shouldn't hinder us.

5)The overwhelming majority of academia uses "China" and "Taiwan" for the two political entities. This is also taught at school. Fact

6)Written encyclopaedias and dictionaries use "China" for the PRC and "Taiwan" for the ROC. Seriously, get your geographic encyclopaedia at home and take look in the "China-entry" and guess what you will find? The PRC. Or go the Encyclopaedia Britannica website type "China" in the search-field and a list will appear with the first number being "China (country)" click upon it and what will you find? The PRC, none other Fact. They avoid making the same to Taiwan using "self-governing island" instead, but at least this acknowledges the local government (far better than Wikipedia)

Almost all "country-articles" in Wikipedia use the common name of the country in question. This is not the case of "China" and "Taiwan". This should be changed. Make the moves and create proper history-articles and resolve the issue.

While the precise status of Taiwan is debatable, the issue can be easily explained as the article Kosovo clearly shows.

The truth is that in the English-speaking world the PRC is simply recognized and named as "China". The ROC is simply recognized and named as "Taiwan". Wikipedia seems to be one of the rare exceptions. Flamarande (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Flamarande points, I think most of the data may not be as valid as it seems. For example, Almost all "country-articles" in Wikipedia use the common name of the country in question, as majority of the contries on earth are the non-dispute ones, the usually naming convention may not be applicable here. Moreover, popularity doesn't mean accuracy. We should look at more examples in special situation, such as

• Korea - is about the civilization, not North Korea nor South Korea
• Ireland - is about the island , not Republic of Ireland
• Congo - point neither to Democratic Republic of the Congo nor Republic of the Congo

I suggest we should keep the China page just about the civilization. --Da Vynci (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have a different understand of "almost" and that you failed to challenge a single of the facts/examples that I listed above. It seems that almost the entire world (including professional encyclopaedias) uses the names 'China' and 'Taiwan' in a different fashion that Wikipedia. Might I suggest that the rest of world, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica, is right and that it is truly Wikipedia which is wrong? Flamarande (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree! We shouldn't equate China to PRC! As I said, most of the examples u used are undisputed countries (with exception of Kosovo). This is a special situation and require special treatement. What I am saying is that we should take example from articles like Korea, Ireland and Congo.

Furthermore, given the long history and extensive culture of China (and no, PRC doesn't has a long history and extensive culture, because it only established recently in 1949), we cannot let everything that belongs to the article China to just land on People's Republic of China. We need an article that is about China, seperated from the PRC, because a LOT of cultual, art, philosophical related articles link to China, thousands of those articles are not talking about PRC, but China. For example, the article Confucius indicate that the philsopher was born in China. Equating China to PRC will make Confucius born in People's Republic of China. We shouldn't equate China to PRC.

Well, this is wikipedia, does your professional encyclopaedias contain articles such as Principality of Sealand, Republic of Indian Stream, Fucking, Austria, Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, The Bus Uncle?!? Wikipeida is different from those professional encyclopaedias if you haven't noticed by now. Quote from Pyl The most common usage may not be the correct usage, and a good encyclopaedia prioritises correctness over commonness.--Da Vynci (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You managed yet again to avoid all the listed examples of the current and common use of the names "China" and "Taiwan" (media, international organisations, academia, and school) besides the article of Kosovo. The sentence of "given the long history and extensive culture of China (and no, PRC doesn't has a long history and extensive culture, because it only established recently in 1949), we cannot let everything that belongs to the article China to just land on People's Republic of China" is very unclear.

The part of long history and culture doesn't seem to be a problem in the nearly all the other country-articles like France, Germany, Italy, Iran, etc. Some of these countries can also be argued to be quite recent creations (re-incarnations, whatever) but their articles correctly include information from the past. Are you going to argue that these articles are wrong?

"We shouldn't equate China to PRC" because of exactly what may I ask? I honestly believe that you are seeing the whole problem upside down: "Equating China to PRC will make Confucius born in People's Republic of China" is a flawed argument. If we make the changes (move PRC towards China and move ROC towards Taiwan) will result in: Confucius born in the China - and the PRC government is simply the currently recognized government (making no judgement about it). The article of 'China' also including a unavoidable and mandatory paragraph about Taiwan and its current government and the common history.

You last argument boils down to the following: Wikipedia is right, and it is reality which is wrong ('reality' being the use of the names of 'China' and 'Taiwan' in the English language - I listed the examples again below). The other professional encyclopaedias, (example being the Encyclopaedia Britannica) are wrong.

1)In the English language when someone speaks about "China" he is talking about the country (PRC). When someone is speaking about "Taiwan" he is talking the ROC. Fact

2)The same happens in the English-speaking media (TV - CNN, BBC, Sky News, NBC, etc, ad nauseam). This is also the case with newspapers and magazines e.g.: The Economist's number of September has two main articles which refer to "China" and they do mean the PRC. Similar articles exist about Taiwan (and they do mean the ROC) Fact

3)The overwhelming majority of international organizations use the name 'China' for the PRC (it begins with the UNO, the G8+5, etc). Look for the little name-cards upon the tables; the representative from Beijing (i.e.: representing the government of the PRC) gets the one with the name "China" upon it. An example of this can be found here. Fact Taiwan's unclear status is known to us all and shouldn't hinder us as Kosovo clearly shows.

4)In international events, like the Olympic Games, the representatives of the PRC receive the name-tag "China". this can be seen here. Fact Again: Taiwan's unclear status is known to us all and shouldn't hinder us.

5)The overwhelming majority of academia uses "China" and "Taiwan" for the two political entities. This is also taught at school. Fact

6)Written encyclopaedias and dictionaries use "China" for the PRC and "Taiwan" for the ROC. Seriously, get your geographic encyclopaedia at home and take look in the "China-entry" and guess what you will find? The PRC. Or go the Encyclopaedia Britannica website type "China" in the search-field and a list will appear with the first number being "China (country)" click upon it and what will you find? The PRC, none other Fact. Encyclopaedia Britannica avoids making the same to Taiwan using "self-governing island" instead, but at least this acknowledges the local government (far better than Wikipedia and Wikipedia can handle this point better that Encyclopaedia Britannica) Flamarande (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree To distill your argument down, it's quite simple. You argue that the common name "China" is equated with the PRC (which is very true). Therefore, "China" should redirect to the PRC article. Opponents point out that there are neutrality issues with the proposal. Also, there are the examples of Congo, Ireland, and Korea that have been pointed out. Does using common names trump neutrality? I don't think so. We're not claiming that everyone else is "wrong." Rather, we're claiming that here's a case (I'm sure you're aware of the controversial political mess that we shouldn't take sides in.) where common usage butts heads with neutrality. The articles of both the PRC and ROC clearly note what the entities are commonly referred to up front, and the civilizational article points to the other articles for each regime someone might be interested in. You had earlier called Taiwan a "country." FWIW, that statement is itself non-neutral. Hence the current compromise. Ngchen (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

China shouldn't redirect towards the PRC article. The entry of "PRC" in the 'search-field' should result with a proper China-article ('PRC' should be a re-direct towards 'China' and 'ROC' should be a re-direct towards 'Taiwan'). I stand by the statement that Taiwan is a country (currently widely unrecognised, in a similar situation like Kosovo). Your argument that this statement by itself isn't neutral is pointless. Flamarande (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NAME, Wikipedia's policy on naming:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Using "China" for the PRC and "Taiwan" for the ROC definitely fits this directive.

While all of us (we who have a special interest in this topic) are aware of the complex history of the ROC and PRC, the policy goes on to say The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

On the subject of "Controversial Names", the policy says The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more.

I'm would like to get things settled, and am willing to compromise. But when it comes to Wikipedia policy for naming the articles, it is clear that the "China" article should be about the PRC (and its predecessors). Readin (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And the history-section should be of all prior governments (i.e. a proper paragraph which explains everything with a link towards Taiwan) as the other country-articles. If I'm reading Readin correctly he agrees with me (I hope that I'm not mistaken). Readin also shows that proper and official Wiki-policies don't agree with the current situation. To answer to Ngchen main argument (We have to be neutral): Do you see the article Kosovo? There we have a similar situation where common sense won over so-called "neutrality". The article Kosovo is neutral and it uses the common name. Exactly this approach (common name and a good neutral article) is what 'China' and 'Taiwan' need and deserve. Not 'Naming conventions (Chinese)'. Flamarande (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC) I also want to add that the articles Made in China and Made in Taiwan show again the use of the two names in the English language.

The policy Readin cited from WP:NAME says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.".

This is not a general situation, thus that particular policy isn't quite applicable here. The China (civilization) article fits well for the neutrality requirement, so as the current PRC and ROC article naming. Mixing those names up will just spark more controversy and confusion to readers. --Da Vynci (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain us exactly which readers will be confused if we use the 'common use approach' instead of the current 'Naming conventions (Chinese)'? To which controversy and confusion are you referring to? Flamarande (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

First, for those who are reading Confucius wouldn't agree Confucius was born in PRC instead China. Secondly, the idea "China" consist of Republic of China and People's Republic of China. Just like Korea consist of both North Korea and South Korea. As PRC always claim Taiwan is part of China, this in turn means China wouldn't be completed without Taiwan. ROC isn't currently completed either, as they also claim ROC includes the mainland. We shouldn't direct the article "China" to any country unless PRC and ROC have settled the issue, like what Germany did with West Germany and East Germany, otherwise we will risk "taking side" which is not neutral. So u have to wait. If you can't wait, why don't u try to edit something else? such as re-directing Korea to Republic of Korea instead, and see if ur theory will be ridiculed there? --Da Vynci (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess that the articles about other ancient figures, like for example Seti I who was born in Ancient Egypt, show us the proper guidelines for articles about ancient Chinese figures like Confucius. Comparing South and North Korea, West Germany and East Germany, with China and Taiwan is simply unwise as the meaning of the names of the first two couples is widely understood in the English language. If you ask an educated English-speaker about "Korea" he will ask you: "Which one?". The same happened with East Germany and West Germany 19 years ago. However if you ask him about "China" he will speak about the current country (official name being People's Republic of China). The same thing happens with "Taiwan", he will speak about the island-country (official name being Republic of China). I'm not arguing that we take any side, I'm and Readin are just arguing that we simply follow the English language in the English Wikipedia. It isn't any personal theory of mine or Readin, it is a fact that quite honestly you have been unable to argue against with proper facts and evidence. The English language doesn't have to wait for the agreement of politicians and governments and neither does Wikipeia. Flamarande (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you say Congo, I (and other ppl who r unfamilar w/ African politic) wouldn't ask you whether it is Democratic Republic of the Congo or Republic of the Congo, simply becoz there are people who am not familar with the African politic . The same with China, there are people who are not familar with Asian politic who wouldn't care the difference between ROC and PRC. It is important for wikipeida's address facts with accuracy, not base on the simple popularity that you cited. As I said , popular isn't mean being correct. So we can't equte China to PRC or ROC. --Da Vynci (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should redirect China to PRC....I didn't bother to read the mass of arguments above (so forgive me if I am repeating something), but, the definition of China is "a cultural region, an ancient civilization, and, depending on perspective, a national or multinational entity extending over a large area in East Asia." which I agree totally. But lets include the younger users of Wikipedia. What if one of those children clicked on "Republic of China" instead of PRC?? ...that might lead to confusion. Anyways, let us remember that the ROC is EXILED. When the Republican Spanish Government was exiled from Spain and moved to Mexico, Mexico wasn't considered part of Spain. International law states that an exiled government does not affect sovereignty, so Taiwan (which was liberated by the San Francisco Peace Treaty) is a country under the Administration and occupation of the ROC... Correct me if I'm wrong. --Taiwanrox8 (talk) , 1 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the contention that the ROC is exiled is actually hotly disputed, and I'll refer you to the article Legal status of Taiwan for the gory details as to why. Second, it is unlikely that someone would enter "Republic of China" when looking for information on "China." And FWIW the article itself clearly points people to where they should be looking, if they get the article wrong. Ngchen (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Should ROC government be called "ROC" or "Taiwan side"?

Pyl and I have gotten into a discussion about the proper term for calling the ROC government when describing relations between the ROC and another government such as the PRC or Ireland that does not formally recognize the ROC. In both cases, we have a situation where the other government refuses to call the ROC "ROC". In the case of relations with the PRC, it seems the ROC is called the "Taiwan side".

What term should be used in each case?

I would prefer to get some answers before Pyl and I start arguing it here so that perhaps we could get some unsullied opinions. Readin (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In cross-strait relations, it is Taiwan side vs mainland China side as there is a "Taiwan side" and a "mainland China side" across the Taiwan strait. It is also used that way to avoid taking a position whether mainland China and Taiwan are two states or two regions within one state (China). If you say ROC and PRC, then it is clear that Wikipedia has already taken a position that they are two states.

Diplomatically, it is clear that they were two states (or political entities) of ROC and PRC competing against each other for the representation of China. We should call them for what they are, which is ROC and the PRC. It makes no sense for normal readers to call the ROC "Taiwan side": "Taiwan side" as opposed to what?--pyl (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you couldn't wait for anyone to state an opinion before trying to push your POV here. Readin (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the PRC is a state, and you believe the ROC is a state, then perhaps seeing ROC and PRC together in one article will cause you to believe that there are two separate states. That's not our problem. We don't say they are separate states in the article, would just identify the governments having the relationship using the names those governments prefer to use for themselves. Whether or not you believe those names imply separate states largely depends on whether you already consider them separate states. If you're a PRC guy who believes the ROC is not a states, then seeing the term "ROC" used to describe that illegitimate government isn't going to change your mind.

Now we've each had a chance to state a view. How cutting our your trial lawyering for a bit (we know from your user page you have legal training) and let people put in their opinions. You seem to have too much time to spend endlessly arguing with and reverting people you disagree with. Give some other people a chance to respond. Readin (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using my legal training against me. You have done that a couple of times, and I tried to ignore it. I believe that you had only presented half of the picture (only said "Taiwan side", without saying "mainland China side") so I felt the need to elaborate it. For the rest of your comments, I will refer the matter to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts as I don't find them civil.--pyl (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have too much time to spend endlessly arguing with and reverting people you disagree with. Given the reasoning at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, I guess it is not uncivil for me to say that I feel the same way about you. Looking at your own contribution, it appears to me that this is your behaviour of late. Also, I guess it would be fine for me to make a smart arse comment about your qualification and job?

I don't think I prevented anyone from making a comment by me making my own case. You do not own Wikipedia and this is an open discussion that anyone can join, including me.--pyl (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why you kept mentioning me in terms of the cross-strait relations article. I am not the person who wrote up "mainland side" and "Taiwan side". When you posted a question on this issue on the discussion page, I said "I have no opinions on" these terms. In fact, ROC and PRC are mentioned as two governments in cross-strait relations. It appears to me that you just selectively read stuff and have problems with them, like your issues with "information about Han Chinese [being] repeated" in Demographics of Taiwan. As I pointed out to you, they weren't.--pyl (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Throw in "Chinese taipei" please for when Taiwan is represented in international view. Benjwong (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support calling it the ROC or Chinese Taipei, per Readin's arguments. It wouldn't be a violation of NPOV, because all of our articles on this issue clearly state that the ROC is not universally recognized as legitimate.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to get more comment, but I suspect a lot of people don't want to get in the middle of a dispute between Pyl and me.

I think "Chinese Taipei" doesn't work in either case. "Chinese Taipei" is used generally used where there is agreement between Taiwan and some organization that "Chinese Taipei" will be the official name within that organization. For example, at the Olympics, "Chinese Taipei" isn't a nickname, it is the official name for Taiwan at the Olympics. On the other hand, it is in no way the name of Taiwan in general. It is not the common name (what most people use in a neutral setting). It is not the official name.

When discussing government-to-government relations between the ROC and governments that are not part of the ROC, I believe we should be consistent in applying names. NPOV is one of the highest goals of Wikipedia. As editors we should take that responsibility seriously. One good way to be neutral is to apply standards consistently from article to article. We should avoid making POV distinctions where none are necessary or informative. Using different names in the cross-strait relations article and the diplomatic missions of Ireland article would implies that there is something different about the relations. On the other hand, consistently calling them by their preferred names from one case to another causes makes no implication. Were I to write an article about relations between South Korea and California, using their official names would not suggest that both are sovereign states.

Due to the political situation, we have often used a standard of writing "Republic of China" when talking about the government and "Taiwan" when talking about other things. It is totally consistent to use "Republic of China" when talking about the government's negotiations with the People's Republic of China.

Pyl has argued that in the context of cross-strait relations calling the ROC the "Republic of China" and calling the PRC the "People's Republic of China" would imply that there are two states involved. However there is no such implication unless one already believes that the "Republic of China" is a state and that the "People's Republic of China" is also a state. Using the two names together neither changes nor reinforces that belief. On the other hand, if one doesn't know what the two governments are called, or if they indeed know nothing about the situation, it is hard to see how hiding the names of the governments will be less of a bias than using their names. Choosing different standards to achieve different results in the articles appears to be a deliberate attempt to avoid the agreed on facts in order to further an ideology.

I can think of two ways we can be consistent. One is to use the official names preferred by both governments. This would be consistent with the commonly used standard of writing ROC or PRC when talking about the governments. Or we could write the names used in the relations. For the cross-strait relations article these are "mainland side" and "Taiwan side" while the diplomatic missions of Ireland would use "Taiwan" per the language used by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in explaining the relations. Readin (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's one reason I haven't said anything! I personally would prefer the option of using the official names preferred by each government for itself. Go by what the stamps say ;) The "Chinese Taipei" thing I must say is - apart from questions of aesthetics - really weird. Until I saw someone carrying the sign at the Olympics, I had never heard of this and it left me struggling for a moment to figure out how that was even grammatical! I suspect it would equally confuse the majority of folk who are not well-versed in cross straits politics. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)