Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:China. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) from Talk:China. (ARCHIVE FULL) |
||
Line 798:
::* [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)
== Merge was not neutral ==
=== Third arbitrary break ===
Eraserhead1, ChipmunkDavis, N-HH and the defenders of this move to equate PRC with China, you have and you will be defending this move incessantly for the foreseeable future from readers uncomfortable with this arrangement. The fact of the matter is -- the two Chinas question is more like that of Korea than the Fifth Republic is to France. With France, there are no two Frances currently coexisting and minimal room for confusion. With Korea, there is a North Korea and a South Korea, and a Korea page in Wikipedia that captures all that is Korea apart from the political division of Korea. That's how China was until this move. No amount of tinkering with the hatnote will overcome the readers' objections with the title of the article. What browsers of the Internet are likely looking for at any given moment in time when they search for "China" should not trump respect for the truth on Wikipedia. In this case, there is currently a live controversy over the political use of the name "China" and the article entitled China should reflect the controversy, not make this logical leap for the reader. [[User:ContinentalAve|ContinentalAve]] ([[User talk:ContinentalAve|talk]]) 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
:Are you actually disputing our enormous list of sources which show that China is used exclusively to refer to the PRC in a modern context? [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and [[WP:POVTITLE]] are what counts, and it was basically undisputed that the People's Republic is the [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] for China. A few IP's disputing something is irrelevant, basically everyone else seems to be pretty satisfied with the move - at least as far as they don't want to lose face by protesting it.
:The fundamental difference with Korea is that reliable sources don't use the term "Korea" to refer to either North or South Korea until context is established, and they certainly don't at the same ratio as sources use China to refer to the People's Republic.
:Additionally when I've gone and bought the move up as an example elsewhere on the site, basically everyone (who at that point clearly isn't a partisan about cross strait relations) has agreed that it was a good move. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::Now that you've reminded me about that list, is it too late to add more entries to that list? (After all, the general unwritten rule is not to refactor archived talk pages). I've noticed that [[Microsoft]] does '''not''' refer to the PRC as the sole China. In [[Windows 7]], when selecting input languages (Control Panel>Region and Language>Keyboards and Languages>Change Keyboards), "PRC" and "Taiwan" are clearly distinguished, however there is no "China", meaning that Microsoft does not consider the primary topic of "China" to be "PRC". See http://i.imgur.com/5Z5g9.png for a screencap. Running Windows 7 Ultimate, Service Pack 1, Build 7601. --[[User:benlisquare|<span style="border:1px solid yellow;padding:1px;color:#FFFF00;background:red;">''' 李博杰 '''</span>]] | <small>—[[User talk:benlisquare|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Benlisquare|contribs]] [[Special:EmailUser/User:Benlisquare|email]]</small> 04:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:::If they do not use the word "China", it is not reasonable to make any inference of this kind. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner|talk]]) 05:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Microsoft [http://www.microsoft.com/worldwide/phone/contact.aspx?country=China seems] to use China to refer to the People's Republic/mainland China. With Hong Kong they use "Hong Kong SAR" on the drop down and [http://www.microsoft.com/worldwide/phone/contact.aspx?country=Hong%20Kong Hong Kong] on the page itself. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 08:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: FIFA calls it China PR. [http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=chn/footballofficials/committee/committeemembers.html] [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
::::With regards to adding things to that list, why not? -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: Edit in the archive? Or copy it here? [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:Well, no (edit conflict; also replying to previous post). If the situation was more akin to Korea, we would have two states, one commonly called "Northwest China" and another "Southeast China" together with a wider area, commonly referred to as "China" that encompasses both and possibly other bits besides. We simply do not have anything like that in 2012 with China. Of course the French Republic point (as well as the examples of [[Germany]], [[India]] etc) is not exactly the same - no comparison ever is - but it's closer than the Korea one, in so far as it deals with both the "this should be about a country not a political system" argument and the "but it doesn't cover the historical territory of X" argument; which are both misplaced anyway, as this article, like all other country articles, does deal with the country as a whole, its history, its shifting borders and how it came to be what it is today. There may indeed be some dispute over the use of the word China, but in the accepted terminology of geopolitics in the English language in 2011, it is hooked up to a life support machine with a priest hovering over it.
:As for what constitutes "truth", well that's another whole can of worms, and I always find it odd when editors here think we can all divine a better, fairer and more "correct" nomenclature and classification than 1001 existing, serious sources. Yes an article title will often inevitably simplify complex issues, or prefer one styling over another (and thereby avoiding giving undue equivalence to a marginal dispute), but we're stuck with that problem like everyone else and whatever article title we choose. Again, if you have a problem, take it up with those existing sources; when they change, we'll change. And, btw, the previous set-up here (effectively a verbose and esoteric disambiguation page randomly discussing the "concept" of China) was far more controversial and far more confusing and was as out of place as the same kind of thing would have been for India or Germany. The difference was that people did something practical to resolve it - and won support for that effort. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 15:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::India is actually probably ''more'' dubious than China as historically India included Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which have substantial populations as a percentage of the region as a whole - this forces you to use "South Asia" to clarify what you're talking about, which is a position you wouldn't find with China as the parts that were historically part of China and aren't anymore are much smaller in terms of population at least. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 15:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::: India is indeed a problem. After a very brief glance at the incoming links into the [[India]] article, many are actually about events long before the 1947/48 partition. And even though the modern Dominion and later the Republic of India is generally and commonly known as India, the ROI, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (and perhaps in some instances Nepal) together are all sucessors to the pre-partition or pre-(Western) colonial India. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
:Eraserhead1, N-HH -- you guys seem pretty content to keep defending the move so I will leave you to it. But for the record, though, I think you should be aware that the "enormous list" is vulnerable to critique that was not presented at the time of the move. Namely, the term China carries a variety of meanings and the subtlties are not detected by the undiscerning reader. To use China precisely, it must defined. In the financial press, for example, the term China is always defined in some way -- as PRC including or excluding Hong Kong and Macau and sometimes including the ROC. (Some China region mutual funds include stocks of companies based in Taiwan). In scholarly works (books and journal articles) about contemporary China, China is generally defined at the outset as referring to the People's Republic of China. If the subject of the book concerns the PRC and ROC, then the book will use those two terms or will explicitly designate PRC or mainland China with China and ROC with Taiwan. Hence, China when used precisely is a defined term.
:In news articles, especially those cited in the enormous list drawn from predominantly Anglo-American sources -- New York Times, BBC, Associated Press -- China is generally not defined and instead is equated with the PRC while Taiwan is equated with the ROC. This shorthand arrangement is used for the sake of simplicity but creates problems when the various meanings of China start to conflict. For example, these news sources can never adequately explain why Taiwan is warned against declaring independence when Taiwan is already independent. That's because there is a distinction between the Republic of China on Taiwan, which one political faction on the island wants to retain, and the Republic of Taiwan, which another faction has professed a desire to declare. The PRC although refusing to recognize the Republic of China on Taiwan, is willing to tolerate the existence of an independent ROC on Taiwan. The threats are made against the declaration of the ROT.
:The Wikipedia entry for "China" should be the place where various common usages for China is discussed so that any reader who comes upon China, regardless which China they were looking for, will be apprised of the existence of other possibilities for China, so they too can use China precisely. With the move, however, China has been defined for them as the PRC. [[User:ContinentalAve|ContinentalAve]] ([[User talk:ContinentalAve|talk]]) 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::All those points are fair up to a point, although I would dispute, for example, the assertion that the financial press are more specific - the [[Financial Times|FT]] for one pretty universally uses China for the PRC, at least in its general news reporting. As do plenty of academic, specialist books (and note, this page does precisely what you say many of those books do, ie define its terms at the outset, in the hatnote; which also offers readers a route to a disambiguation page, in the unlikely event they are looking for another use of the term China than the one here). In any event, WP is a general use encyclopedia. Yes we should avoid oversimplifying and definitely outright inaccuracy, but neither really applies here: it's perfectly reasonable - and no less "correct" than any other option - that we follow what virtually every other generalist, and huge numbers of specialist, publications do. As I say, what we have now seems far clearer overall than what we used to have in terms of how it defines and explains the use of the term "China", as well as, in terms of basic article title, following common usage. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::{{ec}}The weird semantic situation of the independent Taiwan declaring Taiwanese independence is not due to the country having multiple names. This situation arose because of the unique situation of having a regime overthrown and having this recognised by others around the world, but having the previous regime continue on in a small way. This means that although the regime functions independently from the larger overshadowing state, it has never done something like declare independence, as it existed first. The difficulty to simply capture the situation is caused more by the intricacies of the word independence than by ROC/Taiwan usage. Taiwan is independent. The Republic of China is independent. To anyone who doesn't place great symbolic stock to a simple word, those statements are exactly the same. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
:::ContinentalAve if you have additional sources you would like to add to the list by all means do so - probably it would be good to add more sources from Asia. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
: [[Image:Jeju_SK.png|thumb|Location of Jeju Island]] [[Image:Pusan_Perimeter.jpg|thumb|Pusan Perimeter]] Unlike Germany or perhaps the UK, Taiwan, Kinmen, the Matsu Islands, Wuchiou, and the Pratas aren't ceded, lost or seceded. It's in effect a rump state and the government there have until this moment carried on the same constitution, institutions, state organs, and many other things with them from Nanking. It isn't like East Prussia or (Southern) Ireland, which are no longer considered part of Germany or the United Kingdom, and aren't considered in any way as one of the successor entities to the original Germany or UK. These landmasses are still effectively carrying on a Chinese entity and is still in many ways considered part of China as a geographical area.
: Let's consider an analogy. The Korean War ended up with an armistice roughly along the 38th Parallel, which is around the middle of the peninsula. But what if there wasn't an armistice along the 38th Parallel, but instead a ceasefire with the island of Jeju, a few islands along the southwestern coast of the Korean peninsula, and along the Pusan Perimeter, and that the communist DPRK is having recognitions like the PRC does? Would the northern state be known simply as Korea, while the southern state be known as South Korea, or perhaps as Jeju and Busan, or by its full name Republic of Korea? Would the meaning of 'Korea' be redefined, as much as 'China' on Wikipedia months ago? [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, assuming our sources did so. Except that of course Wikipedia didn't re-define China - our sources did. Sorry. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 17:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::: In this case, Jeju or Cheju experienced the Cheju Uprising as traumatic to the inhabitants as the 228 Incident had been to the Taiwanese people. (Note: the term Taiwanese people in this case does not cover 'Mainlanders' who relocated to Taiwan with the Kuomintang.) Would this southern Korean state be considered ''not'' part of Korea, in the same manner as East Prussia or (Southern Ireland) are to Germany or the UK, even though this southern state carries on the constitution, state organs, laws, institutions, etc., from Seoul and is having recognition from the ruling dynasty of the Korean empire as its sucessor? [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 18:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::: And no I didn't say Wikipedia defined or redefined it. I said it in passive voice without specifying an actor. Wikipedia was mentioned as a venue or a medium. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::::We can't really judge what that hypothetical Korean rump state would be called. You'd have to take it up with whatever English sources exist in that alternative history. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 18:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: Most of the sources that are cited here follow the partisan position of the majority of national governments, which are having official ties with Beijing and recognise or acknowledge Beijing's position. Beijing claims themselves as the sole successor to the ROC, the ROC was already replaced and succeeded by the PRC in 1949, and Taiwan is their province. In the hypothetical scenario that I suggested, the DPRK would have secured recognition and official ties in the same way as Beijing now possess. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 18:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::Saying that because a source calls the PRC China it is partisan is circular logic. If the DPRK has become so synonymous with the title Korea that it was referred to as such in sources ranging from newspapers to encyclopaedias to academic publications than I'm quite sure our DPRK article would be titled Korea. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::: National governments can't be neutral since once they got into official relations with either Beijing or Taipei, they gotta stick with Beijing's or Taipei's position. And it has long been an established convention that the press do not 'decode' 'China' as the PRC when, e.g., the US President or British PM says 'China'. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
@ Benlisquare // 04:03, 3 January 2012 and Eraserhead1 // 08:22, 3 January 2012 - Regarding the definition of 'China', ''The China Quarterly'', a reputable academic journal on China published by the SOAS, explicitly defines 'China' as 'China including Taiwan',[http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=CQY] (''The China Quarterly is the leading scholarly journal in its field, covering all aspects of contemporary China including Taiwan.'') and Taiwan topics appear from time to time in this journal:
*[http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=CQY&volumeId=148&seriesId=0&issueId=-1]('Contemporary Taiwan, The Republic of China on Taiwan in Historical Perspective, etc)
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3555932] (Book Reviews: ''Building Democracy in the Republic of China'', and ''Taiwan's Elections: Political Development and Democratization in the Republic of China'')
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3563656] (Research article: Surviving the Rough-and-Tumble of Presidential Politics in an Emerging Democracy: The 1990 Elections in the Republic of China on Taiwan)
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3556460] (Book Review: ''Constitutional Reform and the Future of the Republic of China'')
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3539076] (The Economic Transformation of the Republic of China on Taiwan)
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3539052] (Taiwan's International Status Today)
* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=CQY&volumeId=99&seriesId=0&issueId=-1] (Institutionalization and Participation on Taiwan: From Hard to Soft Authoritarianism?, Networks and their Nodes: Urban Society on Taiwan, etc.)
* [http://www.esaim-cocv.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8385816&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0305741011000725] (Is Taiwan Studies in Decline?)
* [http://www.rairo-ita.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8243607&fulltextType=BR&fileId=S0305741011000233] (Book Review: Planning in Taiwan: Spatial Planning in the Twenty-First Century)
This is also the case for ''The China Review'', an academic journal published in Hong Kong by the CUHK:
* [http://cup.cuhk.edu.hk/ojs/index.php/ChinaReview/article/view/3229] (Return Migration: The Case of the 1.5 Generation of Taiwanese in Canada and New Zealand)
* [http://cup.cuhk.edu.hk/ojs/index.php/ChinaReview/article/view/16] (Re-engineering the Developmental State in an Age of Globalization: Taiwan in Defiance of Neo-liberalism)
* [http://cup.cuhk.edu.hk/ojs/index.php/ChinaReview/article/view/10] (Why Do We Have to Abolish the Province?:An Assessment and Adjustment of Administrative Division in Taiwan)
In comparison, in general usage, the press uses the term 'China' quite often as excluding ROC's territories, Hong Kong and Macau:
* [http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/12/171_101508.html Korea Times: Impact of Taiwan's elections on China] (''In fact, a 35-year-old man, Guo Jiyong, paddled three kilometers from the mainland to the Taiwan-held offshore island of Kinmen, apparently to observe the elections at first hand. "I want to see your elections with campaign flags flying all over the place," he told reporters after he was detained for entering Taiwan illegally. “Taiwan and China are one country, how can you arrest me for illegal entry?”'')
* [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-news/awardwinning-baker-makes-short-work-of-export-deal-to-middle-east-16094290.html Belfast Telegraph: Award-winning baker makes short work of export deal to Middle East] (''"Ditty's has also used its proactive approach to develop opportunities in Hong Kong and China."'')
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/100_wag_hongkong/index.shtml BBC: World Agenda - A tale of two systems] (''Of course Uncle Thomas is not alone in his confusion. In both Hong Kong and China, defining quite who should be on each side of the border remains one of the biggest puzzles in post-handover Hong Kong.'')
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/10/new-zealand-accidental-millionaire-court The Guardian: New Zealand's 'accidental millionaire' in court after two years on the run] (''Two years after going on the run in Hong Kong, Macau and China a New Zealand woman described as an "accidental millionaire" has appeared in court accused of theft.'')
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8256067.stm BBC: China and Macau to develop island] (''Debate has been controversial due to the differing legal and political systems between China and Macau.'')
* [http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/chinas-apple-frenzy-triggers-wave-of-smuggling/article2108527/?service=mobile Reuters/The Globe and Mail: China’s Apple frenzy triggers wave of smuggling] (''Storeowners such as Xu take advantage of the price difference of Apple products in Hong Kong and China. For example, an iPad 2 costs $499 (U.S.) in an Apple retail store in Hong Kong, but its official price in China is $572.'')
* [http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/manufacturing/canadas-food-producers-relish-taste-of-success/article2102832/?service=mobile The Globe and Mail: Canada's food producers relish taste of success] (''Back at Honibe, John Rowe is busy promoting his products in the U.K., Japan, Hong Kong and China. It helps that most of the honey he uses comes from the island. His company is growing so quickly, he’s also now buying from Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta. But he’s sticking with strictly Canadian honey.'')
* [http://www.economist.com/blogs/theworldin2012/2011/12/top-economies-2012 The Economist: The top economies of 2012: From Macau to Laos, with China in between] - ''see table at [http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/Top%20growers.jpg]''
Yet in many occassions 'China' is used to refer to a ''broader ''geographical region and Taiwan is included, as in the academic journals:
* [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-09-24/news/9509240086_1_west-indians-black-america-trust Chicago Tribune: Self-reliance Is All About Trust And Lending A Hand] (''Societies where trust is low, like Italy, France and China (including Taiwan), demand more contracts, regulations, oversight and centralized control, which exact higher costs for the conducting of business.'')
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5055528.stm BBC: Japan shrine seeks 'understanding'] (''"There is a noticeable increase in the number of worshippers and visitors from China, including Taiwan, and from South Korea. We created this pamphlet... to help them understand Yasukuni Shrine better," a statement from the shrine said.'')
* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1910880.stm <!-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1910692.stm --> BBC: Rice: Food for the world] (''World rice production totals nearly 600 million tonnes. Asian farmers produced about 90% of the total, with two countries, China (including Taiwan) and India, producing more than 50% of the total crop.'')
* [http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/chinas-shares-are-finally-catching-up-the-economy-475063.html The Independent: China's shares are finally catching up the economy] (''Both Yearsley and Gavin Haynes of Whitechurch Securities like First State Asia Pacific Leaders. Managed by Angus Tulloch, this fund will provide greater diversification, although China (including Taiwan and Hong Kong) accounts for 35 per cent of the portfolio.'')
* [http://www.economist.com/blogs/theinbox/2008/01/the_power_of_calligraphy The Economist: Letters to the Editor: the inbox - The power of calligraphy] (''Until 1945, a uniform set of Chinese characters was used in China (including Taiwan), Japan and Korea, to name but the three most important "sinographic" countries.'')
[[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
: That's my perception too. Most often for figures on trade volume, such as the trade volume between China and Japan, China and South Korea, China and Singapore, China and the US, or China and any country, China means the Chinese mainland (aka. mainland China, China's mainland). Census and statistical data of China, such as population growth rates, literacy rates, ethnic distributions, life expectancy, and so on and so forth, are all about the Chinese mainland. On cultural, customs and tradition matters, however, China is always understood to cover Taiwan, Kinmen and the Matsu Islands, as well as the former British and Portuguese colonies in the south. The sources right above are solid evidence. Entries on Wikipedia have to be properly titled to reflect this. [[Special:Contributions/113.28.88.96|113.28.88.96]] ([[User talk:113.28.88.96|talk]]) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::Surely the fact the sources have to clarify that Taiwan is included shows this is a usage not expected by readers? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 10:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:::If it isn't clarified you guys would have said that it isn't clear and explicit enough to demonstrate that the word was meant to cover Taiwan. [[Special:Contributions/113.28.88.94|113.28.88.94]] ([[User talk:113.28.88.94|talk]]) 10:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::That would depend on the context of the quote. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: But in many cases the contexts don't tell. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::But in many they do, and we had a list which was open to discussion. {{unsigned}}
:::::: May I know which list are you referring to? Is it the one at [[Talk:China civilization/Archive 26]]? [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::: @Chipmunkdavis - The word 'China' is often ambiguous especially in modern contexts. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Evidence throughout this discussion suggests otherwise. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: Evidence shows that the same word 'China', depending on contexts and qualifications, may refer to the Chinese mainland, the People's Republic, or the broader geographical region. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::Actually, those using it for the Chinese mainland use that for the PRC, so those are one and the same. I have not at all seen evidence for this abstract idea of a geographical region. Almost every definition of China is determined by politics, not geography, and the few occasions that are different are usually about Culture. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::: When you see 'China' and Hong Kong and/or Macau being listed side by side, it's probably referring specifically to the Chinese mainland. But, in some cases, it's referring specifically to the Chinese mainland too even if neither HK nor Macau is mentioned, e.g., the literacy rate of 'China', or the trade volume between 'China' and Iran. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, but again, that is when mainland China and the PRC are considered synonymous. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 16:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::{{od|::::|link}} That's why I said 'China' may refer specifically to mainland China, or to the broader geographical/cultural region that in many cases covers Taiwan. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 08:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::All of which can also mean PRC. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 19:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
::Exactly. I would also add that this sort of page-bombing really illuminates far less than people who do it think. Given the issues at the margins here, as elsewhere, I'm sure you can find 100s of ''examples'' of usage that slighty rub against the norm, but I could - if I had the time - provides 100s of 1000s that by contrast rely on the standard terms and classification. Also, to prove your point, you'd really need to find some reliable and authoritative sources that take one step back and make the explicit analytical judgment eg that "in normal usage, China includes Taiwan". The second IP here has asserted this for culture etc - where are sources that confirm it? And I mean the one-word phrase "China" specifically, in common discourse, not vaguer references to "Chinese cultural area", "Greater China", "One China Policy" or "[[Sinosphere]]" or whatever; and analytical sources that make that assertion, not simply examples of apparent use. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 14:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
:::A lot of these seem to be sources who are simply confused about whether Hong Kong and Macau count as being part of China or not, which is something there seems to be some ambiguity about. But there isn't anything particularly good we can do about it. Its not as if if "People's Republic of China" was actually widely used that it wouldn't be used to refer to only "mainland china" anyway, so that title is hardly an improvement on that ground.
:::It sounds quite a lot like people using "England" to incorrectly refer to the UK, which we solve with a link on the disambiguation page - which is how we currently handle this case here as well.
:::With the journals "Greater China review" is a crap name, and there probably isn't enough coverage on Taiwan to justify its own journal, or they might believe Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China - which is hardly a [[WP:FRINGE]] viewpoint. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Have you ever actually heard of ''The China Quarterly''? Is it a 'fringe' academic journal? And no. Using China to refer to the PRC is like saying America for the United States, Micronesia for the Federated States of Micronesia, or Ulster for Northern Ireland. [[Special:Contributions/113.28.88.94|113.28.88.94]] ([[User talk:113.28.88.94|talk]]) 10:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: Exactly. I'm afraid ''The China Quarterly'' is not something fringe at all. It's a leading academic journal in China studies. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::: @Eraserhead1 - When the term 'China' is used with its broader meaning Hong Kong and Macau are normally covered. But then many of the sources that I quoted above didn't actually touch on the issue about whether HK and Macau are covered. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::N-HH: ''And I mean the one-word phrase "China" specifically, in common discourse, not vaguer references... and analytical sources that make that assertion, not simply examples of apparent use.'' - What do you want then? The apparent usage are adequately illustrative. Anyway, here you go:
:::*[http://www.ntac.hawaii.edu/downloads/products/briefs/culture/pdf/ACB-Vol2-Iss2-China.pdf] "In this paper, the word “China” refers to mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan for simplicity.",
:::*[http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cpi/china-analysis/china-policy-blog/2009-entries/03-02-2009.aspx] "In this context, “China” refers to the community of people who have for thousands of years lived in the areas that cover the Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao. It is also the sum of these various geographic areas. Seen in this light, “China” is neither the ROC nor the PRC, although both governments claim to be the ruling body of these areas."''';''' compare with
:::*[http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/abstract/138/rr138ch01.pdf] "Throughout this document, China refers to mainland China. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau are not included because of unavailability of data and different economic systems.",
:::*[http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/ownership.html] "China refers to Mainland China and not Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan.".
:::(And consider the usage in the infoboxes in the [[Economy of Singapore]], [[Economy of South Korea]] and [[Economy of Japan]] articles too.) [[Special:Contributions/113.28.88.94|113.28.88.94]] ([[User talk:113.28.88.94|talk]]) 10:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Er, and which of those affirm, as requested that "in normal usage, China includes Taiwan"? All of them talk are qualified by "in this context .." or some variation thereof; or are specifically discussing "One China" issues; or specifically acknowledge that they are having to explain exceptions to normal usage. For the 10,000th time - we all know there are hazy areas and complexities at the margins, in respect of both the SARs and Taiwan. This does not alter the fact that in most normal, unqualified usage "China" is used to refer to [the People's Republic of] China (and that the SAR issue would arise whatever term we used here); or that this page is currently where it is, and you need to open a requested move or appeal the last one, rather than indulge in pettifoggery here, in order to do anything about it. It's your time your wasting as well as everyone else's. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 15:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: I don't think it's marginal at all. Quite the contrary, it demonstrates that the People's Republic falls short of being the sole primary topic. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::Can there be more than one primary topic? <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 16:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::: As in the case of Congo, Macedonia, and probably Washington and Georgia too: Either call it more than one primary topics or no primary topic. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:::@N-HH - Wasn't [[Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26|the sources listed in the previous move request four months ago]] 'page-bombing'? If you genuinely want to discuss and get this solved, please refrain from having double standards again and again. The Chicago Tribune and The Economist links were both about China as a cultural region, or a Kulturraum as the [[:de:China (Kulturraum) |German article on Wikipedia]] is so named. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::What "double standards"? And when "again and again"? The point here was that people who bombard pages with what are primarily individual ''examples'' of usage that they prefer as a way to counter overwhelming evidence of primary, established usage prove nothing and generally, I have found, are people on a mission - the second list at least attempted to focus on alternative ''explanations'' of use, even if they were inadequate to prove the point intended. Anyway, this issue '''is''' solved, and has been ever since this page and its contents - which discuss all the complex aspects of what China "is" at a more esoteric or theoretical level - was moved to a title that reflects overwhelming common use of the simple one-word term itself in 2012 geopolitics, however "inaccurate" or "wrong" it appears to you and one or two others. So, we're done. Go and find something better to do with your time, and I will too. For the 11,000th time - open a page move request or shut up. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::ps: I assume you noticed that the Economist letter (not magazine article, as it happens) you cited was referring to pre-1945 China as well, since you quoted that very section; you may not have noticed that we do, like the German WP (not that we have to follow them anyway of course), have pages on [[Chinese culture]], [[One China]] and [[Greater China]], and also, perhaps a little more obscurely, [[Sinosphere]], that look at these broader issues, under more specific titles. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 16:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: That was a reference to the double standard shared by the PRC-camp with the discriminatory application of the commonname principle upon Britain, Ireland, Congo, Macedonia, Holland, Russia and China, and your double standard with the so-called 'page-bombing' now and [[Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26|then]]. And if you aren't already aware, I have started [[#Preliminary proposal|the effort to prepare for]] a move request (or an appeal, if that's more appropriate). To reiterate, Wikipedia isn't just about 2012, and the broader usage of the term isn't marginal or fringe at all no matter how you yourself perceive it differently. Last but not least, [[WP:CIVIL|please be courteous and civilised]]. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China&offset=20120111160750&limit=20&action=history] In response to your clarifications, corrections and P.S., which weren't available when I type my previous response: Those sources that I cited aren't 'individual', non-'established' usage. I have no further point to add if you insist to dispute the standing of ''The China Quaterly''. Just a little bit of clarification: the current German setting is to have the namespace 'China' as a redirect to the PRC article, with a hatnote to the article on the Kulturraum. It's similar yet essentially different from the arrangement here at the English version before the move request four months ago. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::Those arrangements were decided by totally different people, so it's nothing to do with "double standards"; I for one haven't commented on or been involved in any of them. This page is this page and has to be dealt with on its own merits. However, just to pick a couple - Holland is technically incorrect in a way that China isn't, even if it is common (much less so than it used to be, I think); the Ireland arrangement I personally think is unsatisfactory, but there is at least genuine and significant ambiguity there; Britain I think is fine as a disambiguation page, again because there is a tipping-point level of ambiguity. And the sources cited in favour of this move included overarching analysis/explanation as well as examples of use - eg the references to the country profile terminologies, style guides etc. Like I said, once that's been established, it takes more than flinging a list of counter-examples of use, however lengthy (these things are relative), to rebut the more definitive conclusions. Especially ones that anyway mostly had to explicitly note when they were including Taiwan under the term China, precisely because that is not the primary expected way of doing it.
::::::I have seen the preliminary proposal and commented in that section - however, since it has not led you to actually open a more formal process, one can only conclude that it is simply a way of clogging up this page with more and more moaning. And, on that point, civility works both ways (see "double standards" above). And, finally, no, WP is not just about 2012 - no one has ever said it was. But it does favour the use of the dominant contemporary terminology, for countries as for everything else, other than when anachronism is the point, given the context. And it will do that even when there are issues at, as I have said, the margins (I have never explicitly said the issues were outright fringe). <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::: The preliminary proposal was meant to pave the way towards an actual and official move request or an appeal whichever more appropriate. The sources cited above already demonstrate that the term 'China' is itself noticeably ambiguous, just that it might not be as ambiguous as Ireland or Britain to you (and other editors on your side). You didn't say it's fringe, but other editors on your side (i.e. ''you'' in the plural sense) did, and you did consider it as margins. Since Wikipedia isn't only about 2012, applying the 2012 or so-called 'contemporary' usage retrospectively would create way too many confusions and troubles that you might not have anticipated. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 16:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Re your new additions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China&diff=470814654&oldid=470812151] - If it isn't explicitly qualified it could be too ambiguous to get you understood and convinced. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::It is at the margins in terms of terminology and what most people mean when they use the term China in 2012. As a theoretical issue, maybe less so (see One China etc), but we're not talking about that; or about "retrospective" usage. We're talking about an article title in Wikipedia in 2012, which has now been settled, per the rules on primary topic, common name and NPOV (to the extent that the latter applies anyway). Cheers. <small>'''[[User:N-HH|<font color="navy">N-HH</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:N-HH|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/N-HH|<font color="blue">edits</font>]]'''</small> 17:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: We all got different lives and topics of interests. Your understanding of the 2012 meaning of the term China may not be the same as the understanding of other people (say, the editors and contributors of the academic journals on China studies). The poll four months ago clearly demonstrates how divided it is among Wikipedia contributors. [[Special:Contributions/218.250.159.42|218.250.159.42]] ([[User talk:218.250.159.42|talk]]) 17:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
| |||