Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) from Talk:China. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:China. |
||
Line 749:
:Eh, I like "West Major China" (PRC) and "East Minor China" (ROC), since it respects a) geographic location, b) importances of PRC relative to ROC, and c) there is de-facto two Chinas. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.7.0.54|108.7.0.54]] ([[User talk:108.7.0.54|talk]]) 16:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::[[WP:OR]] {{unsigned|Dalit Llama}}
== What does the ROC mean when they say China ==
Well, what does the ROC mean when they say China?
For example:
[http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/2011/china-111216-cna01.htm The KMT believes the consensus refers to a tacit agreement in 1992 that the two sides believe there is only "one China" but with different interpretations as to what that means, though China has focused only on the first part of the agreement.]
What does the last use of the word "China" in that quote mean? How can we "stand up" for the ROC more than the ROC itself does? [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 15:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
: If the articles are renamed as China and Taiwan, that would mean Taipei had surrenderred to Beijing in 1992 but for some mysterious reasons they still exist until today. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Folks, repeating the same arguments made in the move discussion will not get the move undone. If there was no consensus either to move it or not move it in the first place, there is also no consensus unmove it. You have two options: 1) Go through the [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] procedure to force a arbitration committee review of administrator action in moving the pages by arguing that the decision was ''procedurally'' (not logically) flawed. For example, did all three administrators believe they were compelled to take action on this issue, or did they believe calling "no consensus" would be siding with the "oppose" side of the discussion? 2) Try to think of an alternative solution that you think would marginally improve this article, or means to edit this article that would be generally acceptable to incorporate what you believe is wrong with this article. For example, could you alter the text in the lead section to expand its scope, or present the People's Republic of China in a different manner?--[[User:Jiang|Jiang]] ([[User talk:Jiang|talk]]) 18:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
:I think 2) would be worthwhile if there is something useful we can do. I think constant discussion of a topic is unproductive and if there is something we can do to reduce that its definitely worthwhile. With regards to 1) its possible, but its worth bearing in mind that no consensus is almost certainly overused in cases of weaker consensus (especially when the numbers aren't strongly in favour) to give the closing administrator an easy life - I'm sure that that wasn't done this time which is probably why the articles were moved. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 18:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
::The easiest way to end discussion would be to revert this to the original article. Was the original article ever as unstable as this move has proven to be? They broke something that never needed fixing. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/159.53.174.144|159.53.174.144]] ([[User talk:159.53.174.144|talk]]) 17:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
the United Nations must be "bias" then, for kicking ROC out and favoring PRC for the "China" seat. If the United Nations is flawed, then this world must be crazy! Oh yeah, China has a much larger population than tiny Taiwan, that probably explains 99.99% of it, territorial size aside. DUH. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.7.0.54|108.7.0.54]] ([[User talk:108.7.0.54|talk]]) 07:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:There was actually something floating around at the time where the PRC would get the Security Council seat and the ROC would be just a regular member of the UN. Chiang Kai-shek would have none of it and pulled out of the organization completely. It was Chiang's bias more than the UN's.
:And size has nothing to do with it. South Korea is bigger than North Korea. Does that mean SK is the true Korea and North Korea has no claim? Whether NK/SK or PRC/ROC, it has nothing to do with size and everything to do with politics.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/159.53.174.144|159.53.174.144]] ([[User talk:159.53.174.144|talk]]) 17:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I must say that many of the ultra-Pro-PRC voices in this discussion is working off some pretty shoddy history and geopolitical knowledge. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/159.53.174.144|159.53.174.144]] ([[User talk:159.53.174.144|talk]]) 17:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::You're confusing the U.N. with the Olympics. In 1976, the IOC demanded that ROC athletes compete as "Taiwan," but Taipei refused. In other words, the "Chinese Taipei" moniker, which sounds so demeaning, was actually created at Taiwan's insistence. It is certainly ironic that the resistance to designating the PRC as "China" on Wiki comes from pro-Beijing Chinese editors. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, it was the other way around: Beijing insisted that it was "China", and that the ROC was merely "Taiwan". [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner|talk]]) 07:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
::: Was the moniker created in 1976 at Taipei's insistence (or was it created later on as a compromise that both Beijing and Taipei would agree)? Would Beijing ever agree to have a 'Taiwan' team? Did the ROC and the PRC turn up at the 1976 (and the 1980) Olympics? [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 11:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
:::: In 1976, Taipei insisted on the name "ROC" and could not participate in the summer games for this reason. "Chinese Taipei" was agreed to in 1979.[http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/joe-hung/2009/06/01/210430/A-close.htm] All through the 1960s and 1970s, Beijing wanted the ROC team to be called "Taiwan". Taipei wanted "China" in the name, and didn't want "Taiwan." But now all that has reversed. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner|talk]]) 12:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: The source is only for the first part of your statement. You didn't cite any source for the second part of your statement, and I don't think there would be any. As a matter of fact, Beijing never wants to see Taiwan being recognised with whatever status by that name, except as 'Taiwan, People's Republic of China', 'Taiwan, China' or 'Taiwan, Province of China'. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 14:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::: The source I linked to says, "Had [Chiang] allowed the committee in Taipei to be called the Taiwan Olympic Committee, the PRC would have agreed." From 1956-1979, the PRC boycotted the Olympics over the name "ROC". Every four years, there was a confrontation about it. The sticking point was always that Taipei refused to use the name "Taiwan." But of course nowadays Beijing actually prefers "ROC" to "Taiwan". Kauffner (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Don't think Beijing will accept it if it's merely 'Taiwan', but not something like 'Taiwan, China' or 'Chinese Taiwan'. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Coincidentally, president and presidential candidate Ma Ying Jeou reiterated the 1992 Consensus this morning in a press conference for the international press in Taipei. [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=341611695866579] He also emphasised that he's the president of the ROC. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
== Common name for what? ==
As part of my job I have come across a lot of economic, trade, demographic and socioeconomic data. As far as common name is concerned, China means 'Mainland China'. This is the case for its customs area, as well as its census data, economic figures, and so on and so forth. It's also the case for China's olympic athletes and its football teams. They all represents only 'Mainland China'. Why should the China namespace be occupied by People's Republic of China, when China commonly refers to Mainland China? [[Special:Contributions/116.48.173.83|116.48.173.83]] ([[User talk:116.48.173.83|talk]]) 10:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
:"Mainland" is not the same as PRC? We have a small-print footnote in the infobox: "Information for mainland China only." The AP Stylebook says, "Use People’s Republic of China, Communist China, mainland China or Red China only in direct quotations or when needed to distinguish the mainland and its government from Taiwan." I interpret that to mean that those words are equivalent. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner|talk]]) 10:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
:: See [[China (disambiguation)#East Asia]] for a quick and easy (yet slightly oversimplified) definition. (I cannot imagine how ignorant people here are.) [[Special:Contributions/116.48.93.246|116.48.93.246]] ([[User talk:116.48.93.246|talk]]) 14:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::Mainland/inland China does not mean PRC. The two terms are not interchangeable. Mainland China means the China (Beijing and surrounding areas) that was under PRC rule and was not able to industrialize until recently. They had to go through the civil war and all the hardships during Mao's rule (famines, etc.) The people were brought up in a different way than other parts of China or Asia (such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.) It's kinda of like the distinction between South Korea and North Korea except in the "modernization"/recent history aspect or viewpoint. Mainland China was not one of the [[Four Tigers]]. When you use mainland China, you should know that this is the distinction between the mainland/inland and other parts of "China" or the Chinese/Han/Chinese civilization (e.g. Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Shanghai(maybe) but Shanghai is kind of like the representation and "role model" of modern China excluding Hong Kong and Macau.)<!--rest continued below-->
::Regarding the PRC aspect, when people talk about PRC or mention it, there are political connotations. The problem with this article is that people don't always imply PRC when they say China. It's a standardization problem, and this might be similar to problems faced with the Korea article title (South/North/etc.) The article should probably only reflect on the modern aspects of China such as the economy, lifestyle, entertainment, etc. - [[User:M0rphzone|M0rphzone]] ([[User talk:M0rphzone|talk]]) 06:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:::See [[Talk:China#Third_arbitrary_break|this]] for why it isn't equivalent to Korea. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 08:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
::: Most often China means Greater China or Mainland China depending on contexts. Very often it isn't difficult to tell from the context and no explicit definition is necessary. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:: @Kauffner - Interestingly the AP uses it elsewhere too.
::* [http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2103990,00.html] - ''South Korea's Kospi fell 1.2 percent to 1,821.31 and Hong Kong's Hang Seng index was 0.7 percent lower at 18,463.81. Benchmarks in Singapore, Taiwan and Indonesia also were lower. Mainland Chinese shares rose. In Japan, financial markets were closed for a public holiday.''
::* [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZB-4IHZlABeLJuqrINSdFiskzEw?docId=f34a00075ea0469aa09c60a4a70c683d] - ''The Hong Kong position is a delicate one because of continued tensions between China's mainland authorities and the Vatican over religious freedom. ''
:: [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 14:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
| |||