Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

County Survey

There are currently two competing styles for naming counties. Please vote for the one you prefer, or suggest an alternative. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 01:12, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Type	char.	Normal	Disambiguate
Type	char.	Normal	by location	by type
Style A	1	Panxian 盘县	Shexian, Anhui 歙县	no example yet
	1	Panxian 盘县	Shexian, Hebei 涉县	no example yet
	>1	Fugou 扶沟县 Dachang 大厂回族自治县	no example yet	Poyang County 鄱阳县
	>1	Fugou 扶沟县 Dachang 大厂回族自治县	no example yet	Lake Poyang 鄱阳湖
Style B	1	Pan County 盘县	She County, Anhui 歙县	no example yet
	1	Pan County 盘县	She County, Hebei 涉县	no example yet
	>1	Fugou County 扶沟县 Dachang Hui Autonomous County 大厂回族自治县 ROC: Hsinchu County 新竹縣	no example yet	Poyang County 鄱阳县
	>1		no example yet	Lake Poyang 鄱阳湖

Style A is the style that is currently used (more or less) by provinces, autonomous regions, and cities of all levels (municipalities, prefecture-level, and county-level). In Chinese, these are 省、自治区、直辖市、地级市、县级市.

Style B is the style that is currently used (more or less) by counties and cities in Taiwan, prefectures, autonomous prefectures, leagues and banners, county-level districts, towns, townships, and so forth. In Chinese, these are 臺灣各縣市、地区、自治州、盟旗、市辖区、镇、乡.

Basically, county-level cities (县级市) go into Style A; county-level districts (市辖区) and banners (旗) go into Style B; so counties are where these two camps meet. (County-level "cities" really aren't that different from counties despite what the names seem to suggest.) So your help is needed in deciding which of the two camps counties should go into.

There's some discussion further up on this page about this topic already; you can refer to them before voting. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 01:12, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Style A

Put your votes below.

[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 08:28, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) - specification is possible without over anglicisation.

Style B

Put your votes below.

I don't see any reason to use Chinese for this. - Nat Kraus e 13:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 17:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
--[[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 01:51, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC): I've changed my mind since my last debate with Colipon. There are just way too many counties and it's always good to be as specific as possible.
Felix Wan 02:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) I have read the discussion. Thank you for putting so much thought on this.
P0M 02:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Xiaopo ℑ 00:27, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hong Kong people's name

Continued at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Hong Kong people.27s name

Languages and Dialects or Dialects and Sub-dialects?

It is only a dispute among you guys. Real linguists identify 14 languages under the family of Chinese languages, whereas Seiyap and Sunwui are regarded dialects under Cantonese or Yue. Please refer to Ethnologue for details.

The relationship between Cantonese and Mandarin to Chinese languages is like that of English and German to Germanic languages.

Scots is also in dispute for being a language on its own or a dialect of English. But on Wikipedia it is listed according to the definition of the linguists.

Please put new discussions at the bottom of the page...

Thank you. (but it looks weird.... well anywayz)

As I've said already on Talk:Cantonese (linguistics), this is not a dispute among "us only", linguists also use different defintions and that's what we're trying to reflect. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 16:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Show me the evidence that linguists are divided on this issue.

Do we need to copy the discussions on Talk:Cantonese (linguistics) over here or people can just read them there and raise new points here? -- Felix Wan 20:43, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

Steve(?) (202.61.119.115, 202.61.117.155, 202.61.118.21): I recommend that you create a user account so that you can easily sign your post in talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end of your message. That will help us in following your arguments more easily. Thank you. -- Felix Wan 20:43, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

Translation of 王

I'd like to establish some kind of convention on how to translate the word 王 (wáng). Some articles use "king" and some use "prince". I noticed that I contradicted myself in a short period of time recently, moving one page to King of Hongnong and another to Prince He of Changyi, so I'd like other people's opinions. My initial inclination would be to use "king" in the case of pre-Qin dynasty people, when the title was essentially the highest one available, and then use "prince" subsequently. However, I don't know what seems right to everybody else. - Nat Kraus e 11:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That sounds right to me too. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 16:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, wang is trasnlated as "prince" for the Asin-gioros for sure. I believe it's the same for pre-Qing and post-Zhou royalties. On the other hand, it makes no sense to translate wang as "prince" for the Zhou Dynasty royalties, so "king" is the way to for those people. --Menchi 18:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Listing as a country or territory

As Hong Kong and Macao continue to participate in various international activities as independent entities, and the governments of the two take care of all issues except national defense and diplomatic relations. PRC's ministries in Peking has no jurisdiction or administrative power over Hong Kong and Macao. Hong Kong and Macao are effectively operating as other entities. Therefore, wherever under a listing or grouping of countries and territories, "Hong Kong", "Macao" and "mainland China" should be listed under countries and territories, instead of "People's Republic of China", and "Hong Kong" and "Macao" shouldn't be listed under "People's Republic of China" or "Mainland China". In my opinion this will be a much more accurate, clear and easily-understandable description of the status quo, and avoid unnecessary confusions.

For international organisations or activities, Hong Kong's and Macao's interests or participations are usually not prepresented by the delegations from PRC. The names used to join or participate, by Hong Kong and Macao (such as "Hong Kong, China" at WTO, APEC and Olympic), should be used instead og "Hong Kong". "Mainland China" would be a more proper description.

For the Republic of China on Taiwan, Pescadores, Quemoy, Matsu, Pratas and numerous islands, it would be better to be referred as "[[Republic of China|Republic of China (Taiwan)]]", "[[Republic of China|Taiwan, Republic of China]]", or "[[Republic of China|Taiwan, ROC]]", to avoid confusions and unnecessary disputes. Republic of China (Taiwan) should not be listed under PRC or mainland China, and should be listed with other countries and territories. -- December 8, 2004 (UTC)

Please sign your name with ~~~~. Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China but not part of mainland China. This is the current usage. What are you trying to propose here? That it is not part of the PRC? That's just plain wrong. We use official names for organizations, ie, "Chinese Taipei," "Hong Kong, China" and "China" (or sometimes "People's Republic of China"). It doesn't matter if these labels don't make sense. We didnt design them and we shouldnt be making them up. --Jia ng 20:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hong Kong is part of PRC. I am proposing to have "Hong Kong", "Macao" and "mainland China" separately listed, rather than under "People's Republic of China", for issues have nothing to do with diplomatic relations and national defense. -- 21:16, December 8, 2004 (UTC)

If Hong Kong is part of the PRC, why should it be listed in a way which suggests otherwise? It has been pointed out earlier that Hong Kong comes under the jurisdiction of the government in Beijing beyond "diplomatic relations and national defense."--Huaiwei 18:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because it is not on contained in the mainland china. Think about Virgin Islands. Penwhale 06:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Names related to Hong Kong, Macao and ROC on Taiwan

The Chinese names included in items related to Hong Kong, Macao and the ROC (Taiwan) should be in traditional Chinese characters. For Hong Kong and Macao, the Cantonese pronunciation in IPA should be included, and for Taiwan, the Mandarin pronunciation in Tongyong, together with Hanyu Pinyin. The English name should be consistence with the official ones by the corresponding governments (HKSAR Govt, MSAR Govt, governments of municipalities, counties or provincial cities for the ROC) or commonly known among the local people, if it commonly known versions are more widely accepted than the official ones. -- December 8, 2004 (UTC)

And this proposal of yours differs from the existing policy....how? --Menchi 20:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current usage is including the Chinese names and Hanyu Pinyin of the Chinese names. My proposal is to included specifically traditional Chinese characters (正體字) for Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. For Hong Kong and Macao, Cantonese pronunciation in IPA should be included, together with Hanyu Pinyin. For Taiwan, Tongyong Pinyin should be included together with Hanyu Pinyin.

For the English names of topics related to mainland China, usually the Pinyin version is used. However this is not quite the case for Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. My proposal is to set up a conventions specifically for Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. -- 21:16, December 8, 2004 (UTC)

Political NPOV section

A section about NPOV cannot contain POV statements:

Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China
Taiwan... should be only described as part of the Republic of China

Anyone may agree or disagree with the above points of view. But they are just that: points of view (POV), which have been the subject of sharp debate over decades. And phrasing that seems to imply that it is official Wikipedia policy to take one particular political stance on such issues is even more problematic.

These sentences should simply be omitted entirely; this section can get its point across (the need to be neutral on cross-straits issues) without them.

Also, the Republic of China's claim of sovereignty over Mainland China is purely pro forma; no one today seriously presses this claim. It's just a chip in games of diplomatic poker. In English usage, the Republic of China today is always referred to as such, either in full or by the abbreviation ROC; the word "China" alone in reference to current events and situations never refers to the Republic of China.

Thus the usage "of China", "in China", "China's" is preferable to insisting on the cumbersome use of "People's Republic of China" in every possible context. This reflects the usage of English-language news media and everyday conversational usage, and is consistent with the policy on using common names. In the news media and everyday usage, a phrase like "China's economy" always refers to the PRC's economy.

Usage of "People's Republic of China" isn't incorrect, obviously, but should only be really necessary in limited contexts, primarily in some but not all political and historical contexts.

-- Curps 05:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Curps. Colipon+(T) 05:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. ROC's claim over mainland China has already been forgotten in the ashes. No one seriously take that any more. One comment: In English usage, the Republic of China today is always referred to as Taiwan. Not a single english media I have read, used Republic of China or abbreviation ROC. Perhap you wouldn't mind sharing your news source you have been reading with us?? If PRC want's to be called China, why not? Then we shall let ROC to be called Taiwan at the same time. :)Mababa 06:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that "China" can carry a non-political definition, as defined by the article on China. This alternative definition is neutral. Saying the PRC and China are synonymous either implies that Taiwan is not part of China or is renegade. It is also against the notion that China can be a geographical/cultural entity encompassing both--not a single government is in total control.

Repost from requested moves: This not an issue of which political entity is China--that was the Cold War debate. This is over the definitions of the entity named China. By endorsing the "People's Republic of China" as the sole China, we are still making a political statement. This goes against the notion that China is a cultural/geographic entity that transcends regimes--almost no Chinese, and no one familiar with China, will dispute that this can be at least an alternative definition of "China" given how many dynasties have passed through. Those who hold the view that China is a cultural/geographic entity currently divided politically between the PRC and ROC are not few. The news media usage is not NPOV. It's meant to be simplistic since news is designed to be short and cater to the masses. Do you also recommend moving Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia and Republic of Ireland to Ireland because the media does the same? This is awfully western-centric because in a Chinese political debate where there are multiple sides, the neutral terms mainland China and Taiwan are used, never simply China and Taiwan. As an encyclopedia, we can be different. We are supposed to be neutral and to educate. Any confusion in the title can be cleared up in the text. When most/many Chinese refer to China, they do not refer simply to the People's Republic of China, but Greater China. Just walk into San Francisco Chinatown and you'll see the flag of the PRC and flag of the ROC appearing in equal frequency--the ROC flags aren't being flown by Taiwanese, they are being flown by Cantonese-speaking immigrants and their descendants. Given that this is a politically contentious issue, this deserves exception to the "use common names" approach. The same exception has been given to Macedonia and Ireland. Why not China?

I would prefer that you keep the discussion on one page--this page and gain consensus before moving elsewhere. --Ji ang 05:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The real question is what is the definition of "China"? How many of those Cantonese-speaking immigrants and their descendants still holds the unrealistic and dreamy belief/delusion that ROC is the solely legitimate government of China? I doubt it would be many. ROC/Taiwan should be disengaged from China's definition a long time ago. To include Taiwan into the geographic definition of China is already a POV statement. If not, why shouldn't Mongolia, Vietnam, Korea being included as the geographical defined China? There is obvious political implication of it which has already been discussed in the political status of Taiwan. If Taiwan did not fall into ROC's hand, would it be considered as part of geographic of China at all?? Though there is discussion of the political dispute in the article China, the opening statment is still biased and insufficient. To include Taiwanese culture into the cultural definition of China is again another political POV. If not, why shouldn't we include Vietnam, Korea, and Japan into part of Chinese culture? Remember, before 1945, few people are fluent in Mandarin. Before the 16, 17 century, Taiwanese can only speak aboringinal language. Why not let China be China? PRC be China? We might argue that the mass media use the term China interchangable with PRC and Taiwan interchangable with ROC, isn't that the public view so that they pick the usage? Why's a encyclopedia dislodged or segregated from the public common knowledge? I would much agree that the current NPOV policy to be enforced; however, I would love to see a good discussion on the definition of "China," and perhaps find a new neutral point to disengage ROC from occupying the term "China", a term PRC deserves to be rewarded and solely enjoyed.Mababa 06:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I've posted above, the claim that the Republic of China is the sole legitimate government isnt really relevant anymore. I agree that few people realistically hold the view. To disclude Taiwan from the geographic definition of China is also a POV statement. I won't go into Mongolia, Vietnam, and Korea in detail, but there are legal implications from the unresolved civil war (for instance, having a government with China in its title) and the ROC's relative isolation. Note also that Taiwan is 98% Han Chinese (mass migration occurred after the 16th century) and Taiwanese is linguistically classified as part of Min-nan (unlike Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc. but also unlike the Tibetans, Uighirs, Mongols and other groups under Chinese rule...) The debate isnt relevant here and should not be made here as long as many many people consider Taiwan to be part of China, geographical or political. We must represent their views.

We are best representing all these different viewpoints and allowing some ambiguity. I agree that the China article could do a better job defining China. Please bring the discussion to Talk:China. However, for reasons I've stated above, and for reasons that have not been refuted so far, going by mass media defintions is neither accurate nor NPOV. --Ji ang 06:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang in general. It appears, that relatively casual conclusions are being made by drawing on any form of literature (in this case the mass media), over the interpretations of state policies and official sources. Until the ROC officially ends all claims to the entirety of China, the assumption of its non-existance is indeed a political statement.

The term China has never been a sole reference to the Mainland China, with the exclusion of the two SARS even. As an overseas Chinese myself, I dont see any problems with calling myself a "Zhongguo Ren" (Chinese people) without actually refering to myself as a citizen of the PRC. Indeed, "Hua Ren," a term which can only be translated as "Chinese people," is an example of a de-nationalised term shared by many ethnic chinese, including those in Taiwan.

It is becoming obvious, therefore, that the English term "China" or "Chinese", can refer to nationality, race, ethnicity, language, a geographic entity, and so on and so forth. For example, "China Airlines" seems like a misnomer to English observors who presume it is refering to nationality, but the word "China" is "Zhonghua" in Chinese. In comparison, "China" in the name "Air China" is "Zhongguo". Do "Zhonghua" and "Zhongguo" refer to the same thing? Absolutely not.

Therefore I doubt it is wikipedia's purpose to define "China" as only refering to the PRC.--Huaiwei 13:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that, even though many Taiwanese have assumed a Taiwanese identity, there are still many people carry the perception that ROC is part of China (here, we do not know what exactly it is or if it exists as a present tense or perhaps a past tense or a future tense). Therefore I have no intention to further dispute on it. Let's be open minded. The clear answer would only come out on the day when either unification occurs or independence is realized. The current NPOV convention policy give nice protection for both side so that no statements in Wiki should take side on either side. I am happy and amazed on how nice it works; and I actually do not seek a different definition of the term "China". However, practically, there is a clear need to direct China to PRC and thus the articles such as the politics of China exists which is dedicated solely to PRC, even though the usage of "China" does not comply with the NPOV convention. I am cool with that since it nicely serves the purpose for people looking for information on PRC and did not make political statement that ROC is part of it. In this arrangement, PRC's claim over Taiwan is still left neutral and was not damaged nor bolstered. Now, I would be even happier if the article political divisions of China and the aritcle province of China can follow that arrangement, leave ROC outside of the article and stop the current POV situation. Again, PRC's claim over Taiwan would nicely be kept intact. Though convention not accurately followed, for practical reasons, I would not further make any fuss as long as the article is not biased against Taiwan/ROC. Please comment on this proposal on the discussion page of political divisions of China. If this does not work, please give alternative suggestions that complies with the current NPOV policy or other creative solutions that do not bias against Taiwan/ROC. Many thanks. P.S. there are evidence/theories currently dispute whether a mass migration actually occurred after the 16th century.Mababa 01:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The term "Republic of China" is little used and little understood. I admit I was thoroughly confused when I first came across the articles dealing with "Taiwan". The first principle in good article writing is not to confuse the reader. We have one generally understood term, "Taiwan", and one little understood term, that is confusing, "ROC". As to which one we should use - it's obvious - "Taiwan", as it's the only term that is generally used! jguk 19:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, the term "Taiwan" is confusing, because it can refer to many different things: to the island of Taiwan (excluding outlying islands that are also controlled by the ROC), to Taiwan Province (which excludes the Taipei and Kaohsiung municipal regions), to the former Republic of Taiwan, or colloquially, but imprecisely, to the Republic of China since 1949. This is in stark contrast with the term "Republic of China", which is unambiguous. If the first principle of good article writing is not to confuse the reader, then one should use the most specific and least ambiguous terms. It is almost always possible to guide clueless readers to the correct article via redirects. In this case, there is a crucial difference between the terms "Taiwan" and "Republic of China": see the articles history of Taiwan and history of the Republic of China. Those two topics are conceptually distinct: the history of Taiwan includes a period of Japanese colonial rule, during which the ROC was founded; it was only in the 34th year of the Republic, after the surrender of Japan in 1945, that the ROC gained control over Taiwan. The official map of the ROC still reflects the situation between 1945 and 1949. --MarkSweep 10:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The precision you are referring to is generally of little importance to most articles on Taiwan. There is no need to deliberately overemphasise the non-Taiwan bits of the ROC to claim that articles are better named as ROC. Let me make this clear - I have never seen the term "Republic of China" or "ROC" used here in the UK. If I were to ask most people here what the capital of the Republic of China is, I imagine most would answer "Beijing". Please keep articles titles where a worldwide readership will expect to see them. Please do not confuse. And please do not keep overemphasing the difference between Taiwan and ROC, which only seems to be important in American politics and nowhere else! jguk 10:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with American politics, nor is this about subtle nuances. The term "Taiwan" in and of itself refers to an island, a geographic region. The term "ROC" refers to a political entity, which happens to exercise control over Taiwan and also claims control over the Chinese mainland and even (outer) Mongolia. These concepts belong to different categories, there is nothing subtle about it. I understand your confusion, since for most other countries there is just one term that refers ambiguously to a country and to its territorial extent, but here there exist distinct terms that can be used to clarify which concept is meant. It's like saying "the country of Iceland" or "the Icelandic government" when you refer to the political entity, and "the island of Iceland" when referring to the geographic entity, except that in the case of Iceland the distinction is usually unnecessary because the issue itself is not contentious, as far as I can tell. You'll also notice that for many things not directly related to politics, the term "Taiwan" is used, e.g. culture of Taiwan.

Finally, I think we should be aiming for a higher standard than mass media reporting. Here's a quick test. Pick a few topics that you are intimately familiar with. Then ask yourself: How often are they mentioned in the mass media? At what level of detail? And is the presentation in the mass media accurate? --MarkSweep 11:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I guess a somewhat comparable situation is Holy See vs. Vatican City. Calling the ROC "Taiwan" is like calling the UK "Great Britain". We also have Republic of Ireland and Republic of Macedonia not in their usually mass-media locations --Ji ang 11:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well perhaps "Holland" and "England" to "the Netherlands" and "the United Kingdom" is a better example, as MarkSweep suggested somewhere. — Insta ntnood 22:01 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

We should not be sacrificing accuracy for mass ignorance. We should only prevent people from getting lost by leaving informative and clarifying text, the necessary redirects, and disambiguation notices so they are guided to the right place by the act of reading. If there's a place where someone might get lost, then let's fix it. If they don't know what the "Republic of China" is, then educate them. --Ji ang 11:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(to jguk) Probably the same result will happen in the states. Very few people would have heard of "Republic of China" as the official title of the government in Taipei, and would have quickly associate it with the PRC. I even bet if an ordinary American guy could tell Chinese languages are spoken on Taiwan predominantly. She/he might have thought Taiwanese is a distinct language. — Insta ntnood 22:03 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

And please do not keep overemphasing the difference between Taiwan and ROC, which only seems to be important in American politics and nowhere else! -- !!? Jguk: the relationship between the concepts of "Taiwan" and "ROC" is pretty much the most important issue that exists in Taiwanese politics!

Please, listen to us on this one. The China-Taiwan issue is complex, and overlaid by many concepts, such as "China", "Taiwan", "PRC", "ROC", "Taiwan Province", etc., which mean different things to different people. Just because the mass media dumbs it down to make it easier to understand doesn't mean Wikipedia should follow suit. -- ran (talk) 20:29, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I suggest that something to the following effect be added to the naming conventions. This is not intended as a substantive change, only as clarification:

The terms "China" and "Taiwan" should not be used to refer to current political units or entities in specialized, China/Taiwan-related articles. At best those terms are imprecise, and at worst they can be seen as factually incorrect and/or strongly POV in certain contexts (e.g. "the President of Taiwan" or "the Taiwanese state" should be right out). In non-specialized contexts it may be Ok to talk about e.g. "the Chinese government" to refer to the government of the PRC and "the Taiwanese government" to refer to the government of the ROC. The terms "China" and "Taiwan" are perfectly acceptable in non-political contexts to designate geographic regions, e.g. "culture of Taiwan" or "languages of China". In historical contexts, especially before 1895, it is of course Ok to use "China" as the name of a political entity.

It's unnecessary, even undesirable according to the policy on original research, for us to attempt to define what "China" and "Taiwan" might mean in a political context. It's of course Ok to cite various opinions that have been formulated, but this is one issue that we can't, won't, and needn't solve.

Also note that this is not a matter to be treated lightly. In some contexts it is literally a matter of war and peace. For example, Article 4 of the ROC constitution provides that "[t]he territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly." Currently the ROC officially still claims sovereignty over the Chinese mainland. The official map of the ROC even has the pre-1949 external and provincial borders, as well as old names for provinces and cities. However, should the National Assembly decide that it's time to acknowledge that the ROC's territorial claims have been contradicted by reality for more than half a century and declare that the ROC's territory encompasses only Taiwan and the outlying islands currently controlled by the ROC, such a decision would likely be seen as a move toward independence.

As others have pointed out, the fact that most governments around the world use "China" to refer to the PRC is partly due to the PRC's foreign policy. There is an ongoing tug-of-war between the PRC and ROC over diplomatic relations, and the PRC has been insisting on being referred to as the sole representative of "China" as a pre-condition for diplomatic relations.

Finally, the issue of "common names" is not as simple as it may appear. We need to strike a balance between common usage on the one hand, and accuracy and consistency on the other. We cannot rely on "well, I've never heard of it before"-type arguments, nor can we rely on the mass media to provide answers. In the world described by the mass media, many specialized branches of science (say, polymer science) don't exist, all mathematicians are Fields Medal winners working on number theory, sushi is raw fish, all computer criminals are adolescent males, Africa consists of about a dozen countries along the northern coast and southern tip, etc. etc. In non-specialized discourse that is typical of the mass media, the word "Taiwan" may be sufficiently precise for most people; but our job should be not just to inform, but also to educate (yes, there is a difference) and to synthesize and reference specialized literature. And in those specialized contexts, "common usage" is quite different from mass media "common usage". --MarkSweep 10:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks MarkSweep. Basically agree. It has become a deadlock or a crisis, that some people consider themselves defender of common names while others insist on accuracy and encyclopedic. The same problem wouldn't have appear on other encyclopedias, as the editors are all professionals and experts in those fields. Wikipedia is different and innovative, yet it's still an encyclopedia. Generally Wikipedia has achieved to lead other encyclopedia in terms of breadth and depth, but in some areas which are not appealing to average users there are deficiency.

If you want to bring other encyclopedias into it, note that the Columbia Encyclopedia article on Quemoy[1] refers to "Taiwan" and "Taiwanese" throughout. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 18:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia used "Taiwan" in the place of "Republic of China" through the article that you mentioned. It is, however, a consensus on Wikipedia to have placed the article about the government at Republic of China but not Taiwan, after debates. — Insta ntnood 01:04 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)

My view on when PRC and ROC and when China and Taiwan should be used follow the scope of the content of a page. Take the ROC as an example, for political parties or elections, it's more accurate to say ROC than Taiwan(ese) as these political parties work, and the elections are held outside the province and the island of Taiwan. When talking about a government, it's the government controling Taiwan, Pescadores, Quemoy, Matsu, and islands in the South China Sea. The choice between ROC and Taiwan could means different things. Culture of Taiwan is influenced by the aboringinal people, the Dutch and Spanish colonisers, and the Japanese. But the same criteria has nothing to deal with Quemoy and Matsu. Same applies for history and cuisine, but not economy, politics and demographics. The title the ROC uses to be a WTO member, "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu", gives us some idea (See Template:WTO).

The situation has become much more complicated when dealing with the pages titled with "..the PRC" or "..the People's Republic of China", Hong Kong and Macao may or may not be included in their contents. I prefer using "mainland China" in place of "..the PRC" to make it more clear, but average readers will find it more difficult to read, and feel like distant with these stranger technical terms. Your (MarkSweep's) suggestion of Holland eventually took me to the article of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands is described as "the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands" in its article. For the PRC, however, "China" usually means the entire territories under PRC (and perhaps something more), whereas "mainland China" means its proper, excluding the special administrative regions. The are hundreds of articles and categories titled "..China" or "..the People's Republic of China" with contents only referring to mainland China, and its clumsy to tell readers some where in the first paragraph every time that the content is in fact not referring to Hong Kong and Macao. (I guess the discussion page of Hong Kong wikipedians' notice board would perhaps be the right place to further discuss on this issue.)

It is not an easy job to be a voluntary editor of the Wikipedia. Yes we do bear the responsibility to safeguard accuracy, and to sort of "educate" readers. And that's the real purpose of an encyclopedia, readers know more after they read an article. Thanks everyone who collaborate on the lengthy discussions at WP:RM, WP:TFD and WP:CFD. — Insta ntnood 14:34 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

I basically agree with your proposal, but have a couple quibbles. I do not agree to explicitly adding the following sentence: "In non-specialized contexts it may be Ok to talk about e.g. 'the Chinese government' to refer to the government of the PRC and 'the Taiwanese government' to refer to the government of the ROC." The same NPOV/accuracy rules should apply before, that is, using PRC government and ROC government over Chinese government and Taiwanese government, respectively. Besides, the initialisms are fewer letters than the adjectives. That said, I don't go around searching for these phrases to change them, but I wouldn't use them myself. While it may not be necessary to forbid it, we should definately not endorse this usage. And some minor thing: "In historical contexts, especially before 1895, it is of course Ok to use 'China' as the name of a political entity" should be changed to "namely before 1949". Few people actually dispute the validity of the Treaty of Shiminoseki and we can treat the Qing Empire as China till 1912 and the ROC as China till 1949 without running into much trouble. Of course, there is some dispute as to what was the "legitimate" ROC government, esp before 1928, but most everyone was claiming the ROC to be state representative of China.--Ji ang 03:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is quite interesting that the ROC constitution was used as the basis for us to decide on the usage of these terms. Since it has been brought up, I think people should also be made aware of the fact that the ROC constitution initially did not include Taiwan into ROC and the National Assembly did not ever make any resolution to annex Taiwan into ROC territory either. Thus, it was illegal for ROC to claim Taiwan sovereignty. [2] Yes, I do agree that ROC and Taiwan should be separated and should not be interchangable for the sake of formality. If we failed to do so, we will be helping ROC claiming sovereignty over Taiwan. This being said; Taiwan, as a geogrphical entity, deserves the same level of treatment as the term "China", as a geogrphical entity. I do not see any reason why Taiwan can not have articles on economy, politics and demographics since China seemed to have everything, being a geographical entity.Mababa 06:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I oppose having the economy and politics articles of the PRC titled "Economy/Politics of China". Taiwan and the ROC are related to each other because ROC is the government currently controlling Taiwan, and Taiwan is the main part of the present-day ROC. Nevertheless, the demographcis and economy articles of Taiwan should by titled "..of the ROC" because the contents (notably the figures) are about the ROC, but not only Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 06:37 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

Going back to the point made at the top of this section, we really can't have a statement making those POV statements. Nor should we have a requirement that Wikipedia reports certain topics in a way which we know to be factually incorrect. This part of the naming convention should be removed post haste, jguk 13:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is, and how it is known to be be factually incorrect? The statements were made to avoid POVs. — Insta ntnood 13:32 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

A plea for understanding

The most important thing about a Wikipedia article is that it should be readily understandable to as many people as possible. We should think of the readers and not confuse them. I am not alone in never hearing of the term ROC before coming on Wikipedia - certainly where I am it is very rarely, if indeed at all, used. Also it seems to be a political charged term - I'm sure the Beijing government does not recognise a "Republic of China" - so using this term is likely to be POV anyway.

But my main point is there is a word, "Taiwan", that everyone understands. Tiny complexities in Taiwanese politics may be worthy of note in an article - but please keep those niceties to the text. Articles should be named using the word "Taiwan" alone - with the only exception being where it is clearly wholly inappropriate (eg it is specifically about the ROC as opposed to Taiwan). I can think of only two exceptions - the articles on "Republic of China" and on "Flag of the Republic of China" - I doubt there are many other exceptions.

So - please think of the reader and use terms that they will understand jguk 20:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Taiwan" and "Republic of China" are different, as "Holland" to "Netherlands" and "England" to "United Kingdom". History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China are not the same thing. — Insta ntnood 09:14 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing two things here. Of course we should make it easy for readers to find articles and we should write in an accessible fashion. Articles can be made easier to locate by judicious use of redirects, and ROC-related articles should probably contain a general explanation about what the ROC is and how it relates to Taiwan (which is already the case, as far as I can tell). But this is not what this discussion is about. Rather, what we're talking about is the canonical name of an article, of which there can be only one. And the canonical article name should be sufficiently precise and meaningful. The situation is somewhat similar to that of Macedonia. --MarkSweep 02:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, as a person that came out of the island of Taiwan, I will tell you that the history of Taiwan (the island) itself is VERY different from the history of Republic of China. Rememer, the government of RoC didn't flee to Taiwan until 1949. So, in a way, they are somewhat different entities. Especially when you want to talk about historical events. That being said... International Sports events, the official name that is used is Chinese Taipei. This includes Olympics. (Don't use RoC or Taiwan when talking about sports!) In discussion of Politics, Republic of China should be used, as it is the official name of the government. In other contexts, they should be governed on a case-by-case situation. --- My comments on the renaming will be below. Penwhale 06:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

..of Taiwan → ..of the Republic of China

Note: The purposal by Instantnood was, apparently, opposed by numerous people who did not refer to the Naming convention. The discussion for List of Taiwan-related topics (by category) → List of Republic of China-related topics (by category) is here.

Instantnood, can we solidify some of the discussions so we're not looking at many pieces of discussion, i.e. have a place where -all- of the arguments can be placed at once? — Penwhale 01:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The following pages were nominated on WP:RM for moving.

The nominations are to make the titles of these articles to conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV: " the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate. ".

The suggested move is way too controversial and does not reflect true usage of the word Taiwan. If you want to say Republic of China refers to the polity that ruled China for awhile and now is on Taiwan, then none of your moves make sense. You think Economy of the Republic of China should include a historical section about China and then talk about Taiwan? Makes no sense whatsoever.--160.39.195.88 22:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Taiwan-related topics (by category), List of Taiwan-related topics and Geography of Taiwan are nominated on WP:RM separately from the ones above, for the possibility to be cleaned up rather than moved.

See also the precedants of the move requests of Template:Politics of Taiwan, Politics of Taiwan, Category:Taiwanese political parties and List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 21:25 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

The suggested moves make sense to me. For example, Category:Airports of Taiwan is clearly too restrictive and Category:Airports of the Republic of China is the better category, since Jinmen has a local airport, which we could potentially have an article about that would fit into the latter category, but not the former. --MarkSweep 03:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The moves are great-- but I think you don't have to move the Highway one, since I regard this title as "Highway systems in place on the island of Taiwan", which is not political. Everything else are good to move. Penwhale 06:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Penwhale, I guess highway system will perhaps be the most controversial one. We did have a debate on List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan at WP:RM. This one on highway system could be comparable. It talks about "national highways". I also asked if "township highways" are found in the two Fukien counties. — Insta ntnood 09:31 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

True. I don't believe "township highways" exist in the two Fukien counties. I might be wrong, but I don't recall their existence. Penwhale 12:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But still, like the discussion on metropolitan areas, it involves the designation and policies of the central government of the ROC, and highways that are national. — Insta ntnood 15:14 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan

Much of this let's move everything to ROC approach appears to be borne out of not really understanding what people mean by Taiwan. From what I can tell it has two (perhaps three) meanings:

1. The island of Taiwan

2. Areas ruled by the Taiwanese government in Taipei

3. The province of Taiwan (ie 2 minus a couple of groups of small islands near China)

Those advocating a move to ROC are forgetting not only that it is a little-used term, but are also ignoring the second meaning listed above.

There is nothing unusual about meaning 2. Take the example of France, which most people would take in most instances as being Metropolitan France. However, in some contexts, such as "Guadeloupe is part of France", meaning 2 clearly takes precedence. We see this elsewhere "Jersey" could mean the island of Jersey, or it could mean all the other little islands governed by Jersey. And similarly for many other places.

Please note that "Taiwan" is therefore the most appropriate terminology to use in almost all cases. It is the term that most people use and understand. ROC is little used (not at all from what I've seen in the UK) and should be reserved only for those articles where Taiwan in its extended second meaning is not appropriate. This is only fair on the reader - who should not be confused! It also means we do not need to get into discussions about the POV nature of using the term "ROC" - I bet if I asked the Chinese Embassy for guidance that they would tell me that no such thing exists in international law, jguk 13:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is good and reflects true usage. People are confused about the difference between government and everything else. A government creates a unity of geography, people, culture, and more. People are free to move within the lands of a single government freely (well, under most governments anyways) and communicate within the single area more. But all these things, although caused in some way by the single government, are not the government. People talk about Cinema of Taiwan and it would be ridiculous to say Cinema of the Republic of China. It's not about the government, it's about the place, the people, the language, the culture, etc.--160.39.195.88 22:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You clearly haven't been paying very close attention. The ROC province of Taiwan is the island of Taiwan minus the municipalities of Taipei and Kaohsiung. Also, your second definition of Taiwan is what is in dispute - those in favor of the moves are contending that the "areas ruled by the government in Taipei" cannot be properly referred to as "Taiwan". At any rate, the term "Republic of China" is simply not little used. When you remove all references to "People's Republic of China", there are still 1.5 million hits for "Republic of China." There are also about two million hits for ROC +Taiwan. So that's about 3.5 million hits, although there's probably some overlap. Of course, there are many more for Taiwan, but that is beside the point. As for not being used at all in Britain, well... [3], there's that. Your France exammple, at any rate, is flawed. The government which rules over Guadaloupe is called the French Republic, or France. As such, it is not in any sense inaccurate to say that Guadaloupe is part of France, while acknowledging that it is also not part of metropolitan France. Same deal for Jersey and all the other examples you cite. The point here is that the government which rules Quemoy and Matsu, and is based on Taiwan, does not call itself "Taiwan". It calls itself the "Republic of China". Furthermore, the PRC also does not consider these islands to be part of their (notional) province of Taiwan - rather, they are considered to be part of the mainland provinces. So, it would seem, neither the ROC nor the PRC consider Quemoy and Matsu to be part of Taiwan. It is only a lazy western media which uses "Taiwan" as shorthand for "Republic of China" that does so. Of course, there are political reasons for this, and, indeed, to use ROC is to accept the ROC's own POV. However, there is no choice but to be POV, as there is no NPOV option - we have to call it something, and it makes more sense to call it by the name it calls itself, and the name by which those countries which do recognize it refer to it as, rather than a constructed name made up by western countries that want to be able to deal with the ROC while maintaining relations with the PRC have come up with. The question of whether the country should become the "Republic of Taiwan" is a controversial one within Taiwan itself, and the idea that we should pander to this because people from Britain might be confused by what is a perfectly common usage is absurd. Especially since our Republic of China article explains pretty clearly what exactly is going on. john k 16:04, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to give a further example of why "ROC" is often preferred, here's an excerpt from President of the Republic of China:

Outside of Taiwan, the President of the ROC is commonly referred to as the "President of Taiwan" (台灣總統). This usage is actually rather uncommon on Taiwan itself, as members of the pan-blue coalition dislike the term because it implies separation from the concept of China, while members of the pan-green coalition, even those who support Taiwan independence, generally regard calling the office President of Taiwan needlessly provocative.

This acknowledges the existence of the terminology that jguk and others have encountered in the Western mass media, and at the same time points out why that terminology is not used by those directly affected. I believe this article addresses everyone's concerns: the article title uses the correct official title of the ROC president, while still pointing out the common Western usage. It is also easy for anyone to find, because President of Taiwan redirects to President of the Republic of China. Most of the issues of "common usage" can be resolved in a similar fashion without having to sacrifice accuracy. --MarkSweep 20:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We are writing an English-language Wikipedia for English-speaking readers. What usage is used in other languages is irrelevant. The fact remains that most English-speakers can easily understand the second meaning of "Taiwan" outlined above. They can't understand ROC. Now there are rare cases when it would be perverse not to use ROC - but these are very rare. Where "Taiwan" can be used (with the second meaning given above in point), then it should be. This is a question of intelligibity.

Also, usage of the word "Taiwan" means that we do not have to make a POV statement that we recognise the "Republic of China" as a polity - a view that is not supported by PR of China, nor the overwhelming majority of states that form the United Nations. We should be as eager not to take the pro-ROC stance as the pro-China stance, and here using the term that most English-speakers are familiar with (Taiwan) best achieves this.

Thankfully, the current Naming Convention supports this. We only use ROC where it is more accurate. In almost all cases Taiwan (using the second meaning outlined above) is accurate, so we do not need to resort to ROC except in a few rare cases - such as when discussing the Republic of China itself, or the Flag of the Republic of China.

I must say, I was surprised by john kenney's comments. Where a polity is mostly based on one island it is common practice that the name of the island is used for the name of the polity too. Take "Ireland", for instance. Most people are quite comfortable with the idea that "Ireland" can mean the island of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.

Finally, may I add that I am always depressed when users, for whatever reason, try to argue that general intelligibility is unimportant. The whole purpose of an encyclopaedia is to allow readers to learn about things they want to learn about - and this is best done using language they understand. Unfortunately using gobbledygook (regardless of the rationale behind using that gobbledygook) just puts people off. Make articles intelligible first - deal with minor niceties later, jguk 20:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Make articles intelligible first - deal with minor niceties later, — which is exactly what we did. We used to have ROC at Taiwan and PRC at China. The current situation is a result of dealing with "niceties".

My view is the same as always. NPOV is absolute and indisputable. Moving ROC to Taiwan results in more NPOV, not less, since it makes the POV equation that ROC = Taiwan, one that that the ROC government itself has not made. Keeping ROC where it is (i.e. its own name for itself), and stating that many governments do not recognize it, is NPOV, because that's precisely what the current situation is.

Ireland is not a good example either, because we have two articles on it: Republic of Ireland and Ireland, which clearly refer to different things. If the Republic of Ireland, for some historical reason, called itself the "Republic of Scotland", then you can be sure that article would be there instead, even if the mass media refers to it as "Ireland" still.

Also, the primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate. This means that the reader must occasionally be confused. We shouldn't choose to spread misinformation instead because we are afraid of confusing the reader, because that is not what an encyclopedia does. -- ran (talk) 02:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the common name is neither NPOV nor accurate. We have similar arrangements at Ireland, China, and Macedonia where the polity known by the common name does not have its article there because of accuracy and npov disputes. When in doubt, the best way to resolve the issue is to use the name the entity calls itself. What do we do about those and Senkaku Islands? Whose side do we take?

If people are going to be confused, then the best way to go about it is to add explanatory text to clarify the situation. It's best to accomplish this through the content of the articles, not their titles. What you are proposing to do is to keep everyone ignorant just because they arent aware of the issue. Why not educate them? Dont we already put "Taiwan" in parenthesis after "Republic of China"? If that's still confusing, then let people click on the link. That's the beauty of wiki. If that's still not enough, then add enough supporting text to make it clear.--Ji ang 02:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JG's entire argument revolves around the oft-repeated, but never-explained, claim that "most English-speakers can easily understand the second meaning of "Taiwan" outlined above. They can't understand ROC." He has yet to demonstrate how the terms Republic of China/ROC, which appear in millions of webpages, are not comprehensible to English-speakers. So far his only arguments seem to consist of glorifications of his own ignorance (his lack of knowledge of our policy on Ireland only confirms this). john k 05:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another silly statement from JG: "Where a polity is mostly based on one island it is common practice that the name of the island is used for the name of the polity too." Do we call the Dominican Republic "Hispaniola"? The reason that "when a polity is mostly based on one island" that island name is usually used for the polity as well is because most such polities call themselves after that island, with the Republic of Ireland, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Saint Lucia, and so forth as examples. Also, because the name of the polity often becomes the name of the island in such circumstances. Thus, the island we used to call Ceylon we now call Sri Lanka, because this is the name of the polity on the island. Obviously, the ROC's presence on Taiwan isn't going to mean that the island starts to be called "China," and it also continues to choose not to call itself "Taiwan". So this whole line of argument is completely irrelevant. john k 05:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, Ran and john k have already explained pretty thoroughly. And I am just going to make some comparisons. The United Kingdom based largely on the island of Great Britain. Although "Great Britain", or simply "Britain", is used to refer to the country quite often, everyone knows about "United Kingdom", and that's where the article about the country is located. The ROC, currently, like the United Kingdom, based on an island. And like "Great Britain" or "Britain", "Taiwan" is used in common usage. Nonetheless, the ROC has not offcially renounced claims to the territories on the continent it lost in 1949, and Taipei is until today a provisional capital. The official capital remains Nanking. (A possible analogy could be like a new government is set up in the UK with a new name, displacing the original government and the royal family of the UK and make them retreated from Great Britain to the Shetland Islands, and stay there for half a century, without renouncing its sovereignty on Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And the new government claims to be the sole legitimate government and successor to the original government, disregarding the existence of the original government on the Shetlands.) — Insta ntnood 08:42 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

The Channel Islands are not natural geographical extention of the island of Great Britain, and they are politcally not part of England or United Kingdom, but crown dependencies. Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu and islands in the South China Sea, like the Channel Islands, not geographically part of the island of Taiwan, and neither they are political part of Taiwan Province. But unlike the Channel Islands, they are integral part of the ROC. — Insta ntnood 08:43 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

The reasons why the article about the country is located at "Republic of China" but not "Taiwan" have been debated. The second meaning of "Taiwan" that jguk sugguested is not preferred on Wikipedia, and "Republic of China" is used for that meaning. — Insta ntnood 08:45 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, re: Great Britain, that we have, in the past, had arguments over the very question of when it is appropriate to use "Great Britain". The conclusion reached, I believe, was that "Britain" (and "British", of course) is an acceptable short hand for the UK, but that "Great Britain" is not, referring only to the island of Great Britain, and should only be used for the 1707-1800 period. john k 21:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John, "Great Britain" has two meanings. Sometimes it means the actual island on which the majority of England and Scotland and Wales are located. On other occasions it is used synonymoulsy with England, Scotland and Wales combined (the difference being numerous islands that form part of England, Scotland and Wales).

The usage is usually obvious from the context. For example, overlooking St Helier there is a castle on its own island. This castle would be said to be in Jersey, but not on Jersey.

A similar distinction exists here. If we refer to "in" or "of" Taiwan, we expect it to refer to all territories controlled by Taipei. It is only if we refer to "on" Taiwan that we are referring to the island. In most cases people use "Taiwan" to mean the areas controlled from Taipei - it is irrelevant whether particular Wikipedians take issue with this - this is a straightforward fact that is readily demonstrable. It is only right that we reflect this usage, jguk 00:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hate to disagree with you here, but being a person born in Taiwan, I find that "History of Taiwan" is generally confined to the history of the island itself. But that's beside the point. The point is, there are differences. This is one of the examples where people will get confused. Therefore I still maintain my partial support for moves that was purposed. Note that I don't think all should be moved, so don't think that I'm backing Instantnood 100%. Penwhale 17:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A little note to add. When talking about Taiwan such as cuisine and culture, the Pescadores are included, but not Quemoy and Matsu. — Insta ntnood 18:18 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

But would you say that Belfast is in "Britain" or "Great Britain"? Would you say that Quemoy is in "Taiwan"? Why do you think we have separate articles for Great Britain and Britain and United Kingdom, as well as Ireland and Republic of Ireland? -- ran (talk) 01:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

A year ago, there was a proposal, expressed in terms of revolutionary organisations, to "call the group what it calls itself". The ensuing discussion for this proposal, which was rejected, can sill be read at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common_names)#Proposed policy on names of groups. I find one comment particularlty interesting:

The proposal is in fact a highly PoV one, rather than a reduction of PoV. It is not only PoV in intent, by assuming and validating the extreme PoVs that

most English-speakers are sheep at the mercy of corporate media, and

educated humans forget easily that a name is just a verbal tag and carries no information about the thing it names.

It also is PoV in effect, serving to impede recollection of what a reader already knows (or believes -- and don't forget that the difference is their business, not ours) about less visible groups. This favors the PoVs of fringe groups over mainstream ones, since smaller ones are much more likely to have their alienating past obscured by our use of an obscure name that has not passed the muster of the market place of ideas.
This is not, BTW, a matter applying just to groups the size of sects (whether religious or political). For instance, if any significant number of Americans could remember the obscure names of the highly significant PRK, The West Wing would never discuss the "Republic of North Korea". --Jerzy (t) 23:10, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The underlying problem, though, is that a name is extremely PoV. How can we be NPoV on issues where the center of the argument can't even be NPoV? I'm just pointing out that Taiwan != RoC. They have different meanings, so articles regarding such should be named properly. It's not the case of "Hi, my name is Joe, but others always call me JZ." where the names are equivalent. Heck, excuse me for saying this, but personally I think the proposal doesn't -quite- apply to this discussion due to the fact that all other cases listed the names are targeted at the same people, where as this one is not. Penwhale 18:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think what Penwhale said is right. Both ROC and Taiwan as a political entity are very POV. Even though ROC government has yet officially renounce its claim over mainland China, this claim has been unofficially dropped. The ROC officials frequently used the term "Taiwan" to refer the current government. Here, two contradictory POVs have already generated within the government. Let's look at the UN charter: Article 23.1. The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France......[4]. According to the UN charter, the PRC is sitting on the security council under the name of ROC. Therefore, (legally, perhaps?) PRC=ROC. Here is another POV. Many Taiwanese believe in the popular sovereingty theory equates ROC to Taiwan. (e.g. Chen Shui-Bian) Many Taiwanese rejects Chinese sovereignty distinguish Taiwan from ROC.(e.g. Lee Tung-hui) Many Taiwanese believes in Chinese sovereignty (e.g. James Soong) belives ROC=China>Taiwan. There are also politicians doesn't seem to have strong opinion.(e.g. Lien Chien) So three POVs among Taiwanese. PRC's citizens might think ROC does not exist any more. Western mass media calls the political entity on Taiwan island, Taiwan. Which one should we represent? Please remember that even though we are supposed to present the most accurate information to the readers, on topics like this, the best we can do is to present the neutral infomation that is the more inclusive than suppressing others. Is any of the definition of ROC-Taiwan relationship above factual? Are we suppose to difine it? Isn't that rejecting the western common usage also an POV?

Moreover, how do we know that the term "Taiwan" does not change its definition? Looking at the dictionary in Princteon, Taiwan could be used to refer the goverment controlling the island Taiwan[5]. Are we the ones to prejedice against the definition of Taiwan which is commonly used in the world? If so, why don't we just write this encyclopedia in Latin? No one is saying that ROC is a unrecognizable term, people are only saying the term is confusing and the term Taiwan is more representitive for the political entity than the term "Republic of China."

Of course, as an encyclopedia, the articles should reveal the most correct information to the readers. Presenting all these different POVs is never a problem. The only question is what definition should we follow for the title of the article? And also should everything about Taiwan island to be under the title XXX of ROC because it is controlled by this Chinese regime or should we put them under the title XXX of Taiwan since Taiwan is an cultural/geographical entity? Example: the debates in Geography of Taiwan.

In my opinion, we should choose the word that helps people looking for their information in the title. The NPOV could be worked out in the article.

Moreover, it is debatable that Taiwan is not part of China since it is currently adminitrated by a Chinese regime which arguably in exile and does not have legal sovereignty over the island. If we separate the political entity of ROC from the geographical entity, Taiwan, then should we also withdraw Taiwan (as a geographical entity) from China (as a geographical entity)? The only reason for Taiwan to be included in to China(as a geographical entity) that I can figure out is the fact that Taiwan is governed by ROC.Mababa 05:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that despite "Taiwan" is the prevalent usage in place of "ROC" in many parts of the world owing to political reasons, a consensus had already been made to use "ROC". "Taiwan", to my understanding, refer geographically either to the island or the island plus its associate islands, or politically, the province.

This set of conventions has indeed the credit of avoiding many possible trouble and confusions, that the scope of the content of each article can be easily identified by the title. For instance, History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China. Taiwanese cuisine and Culture of Taiwan are obviously about Taiwan and Pescadores. Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu and islands in the South China Sea, although currently controlled by a government based in Taipei, do not share not the same path of history as Taiwan and Pescadores do. And their connection with Taiwan in geography is little. In any article about Taiwan, they are generally excluded.

A simple rule would be to consider the scope of the content of an article, and to see if the national government is involved. The problem of locating the right information by average readers can easily be done by redirects and notices. — Insta ntnood 13:55 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention to further dispute on this topic. I would just want people to notice that when we bias against the western usage, we are actually creating POV. Since the western usage is so prevalent, as an encyclopedia, Wiki should enlist that definition as part of its inforation. The current NPOV policy gives the convenience of avoiding disputes at the expense of the point of view from a large portion of population on this earth. I am not sure if we can call this NPOV or if this conforms to NPOV. The fact that so many people uses the western usage Taiwan=ROC indicates the current policy is actaully a POV. Perhaps we should think of a way to modify the convention policy and include this common definition into the article without disturbing the historical facts. If the Chinese POV is more neutral than the western POV, then perhaps Taiwanese POV would be more neutral than Chinese POV. The fact is: in order to reach NPOV, all these POVs should be included.Mababa 06:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which is why, I think, we should name the article based on its contents. If it involve the govenrment, I lean toward RoC. If it's like culture, Taiwan is acceptable. Penwhale 09:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The current treatment is perfectly alright, and it does have the merit to tell well-informed readers about the scope of an article by its title. For instance, History of Taiwan as oppose to History of the Republic of China. We can also tell by the titles that the articles Taiwanese cuisine and Culture of Taiwan have nothing to do with Quemoy, Matsu, etc., that did not share the same path of history. If we shift to the prevailing western usage all these differentiation will disappear. People will start to ask whether Quemoy and Matsu were part of the Japanese empire, and use the same Japanese-influenced vocabularies as on the island of Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 15:09 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)

Basics for the Taiwan Vs. ROC dispute

Copy and paste from what I posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#The China-Taiwan mess :

Just a little bit of information. For people who are interested to know why it was so controversial about all these titles, you can read the following articles or sections and get some clues: Republic of China, Political status of Taiwan, Taiwan Province, Quemoy, Matsu Islands, Lienchiang, Taiping, People's Republic of China, Mainland China, Taiwan (as an island), Political divisions of China#Disputed province, Legal status of Taiwan, History of Taiwan, History of the Republic of China, Chinese civil war, Taiwan under Dutch rule, Administrative divisions of the Republic of China#Claims over mainland China and Mongolia, Template:WTO, Foreign relations of the Republic of China, UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, Taiwan Relations Act, China and the United Nations, Chinese Taipei, Chinese Taipei#Other references to Taiwan, China Airlines and Pratas Islands — Insta ntnood 09:42 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

Fukien Province — Insta ntnood 18:51 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

I guess if one doesn't know about the background of the ROC and Taiwan, she/he can hardly follow the arguments in this discussions. — Insta ntnood 18:22 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

As a participant in this debate, I am prepared to read through your wodge of articles. They should not, however, be required reading for readers who want to use Wikipedia to look up casually something in Taiwan. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 18:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Problem arises in the sense that not all participants of this "Debate", as you call it, know the background sufficient enough. Penwhale 18:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that average readers may not be able to tell the differences, and I support having notices and redirects wherever appropriate and necessary (which is already the case for many articles). — Insta ntnood 18:51 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

Solution

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

As the one who initiated the discussion, I support the moves. — Insta ntnood 17:35, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
I support them too. WhisperToMe 04:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a bullshit move. Republic of China is the nominal name of the government.

Why do we need a vote?

Before we vote, could someone clarify for me the difference between Formosa and Taiwan?

Also, Instantnood makes a good point about ROC vs. Taiwan. Having some interest in East Asia, I for one am familiar with the meaning of ROC (elected gov't on Taiwan/Formosa) and by the way, ROK (Republic of Korea = South Korea), but many English speakers may be unfamiliar with the alphabet soup.

As with Korea, we have rival governments both using (a) the word Republic and the name of the entire nation (like "Korea" or "China").

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea - the "non-democratic" regime controlling North Korea
Republic of Korea - the democratic (i.e., elected) government of South Korea
Peoples Republic of China - controls the mainland, was never elected (starting some democratic reforms, though)
Republic of China - democratic government which controls Formosa / Taiwan.

Wikipedia should not:

Try to confuse people
Try to determine the "real truth" and "educate" people to accept it

Wikipedia should:

Use words the way most people use them, or pick less confusing words
Describe fairly all disputes, political or terminological, rather than taking sides

I hope I have accurately stated Wikipedia policy, but if you don't think "Uncle Ed" is smart enough or honest enough to explain policy, then why not ask Jimbo? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Stub sorting

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#The China-Taiwan mess regarding China-geo-stub and Taiwan-stub. — Insta ntnood 01:01 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)