Talk:China

UN Membership

The introduction dates PRC's UN membership from 1971, but later in the article it says 1972. I'm reading a Kissinger memo from July 1971 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB66/ch-40.pdf) wherein he relates discussing UN admission with Chinese leadership, who do not seem to be in a hurry to join the UN, so I assume 1972 is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.135.107 (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

women missing in China

In the demographics section, the sentence "Recent studies suggest that over 40 million girls and women are 'missing' in China (Klasen and Wink 2003)" is not clear enough, should be something like this:

"The estimated total number of the missing females in the 20th century of the birth cohort between 1900 and 2000 is 35,59 million." see pdf page 21 in the source that is used in the article. Carry12q (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot edit because the article is protected.Carry12q (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Request the permissions at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I feel like the wording you provide is an improvement but it is somewhat difficult to understand and I would prefer to not use the word "missing". Perhaps, "For the population born between the years 1900 and 2000, it is estimated that there are 35.59 million fewer females than males." Is that still an accurate representation of the idea? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the cited study goes further than just to point out that there are fewer females. It specifically keys in on excess girl child mortality. I think you sentence is a good start, but should include a reference to the main thrust of the paper, which is the often deliberate manipulation of the sex ratio. It helps give context as to why the ratio is off. 204.65.34.167 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Much of this is already addressed in the preceding paragraphs and I have added a sentence derived from the same source about excessive female child mortality and some of its causes. I hope that this completes the picture. Have a look and tell me if any further changes are needed. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Article rename proposal

See article rename proposal here: Talk:China#Requested_move_August_2011 --Noleander (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That discussion is now archived at Talk:Chinese civilization. It took me awhile to figure it out. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a user at 203.145.92.164 and similar IP addresses have been repeatedly making the same edit that's been flagged as "trolling" by other editors. An APNIC query shows the addresses trace to a residence in Hunghom, Hong Kong. Details and the owners' names are available through searching in the previous link. I would suggest asking for admin help if the issue persists.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire ISP would have to be blocked because they use a rotating IP caching proxy. It's been done before when that user was systematically hitting hundreds of articles but it isn't worth doing for simple talk page disruption. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ok - I assume that means WP:3RR won't apply here? 15:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by White whirlwind (talk • contribs)

The IP actually traces to the address of the telecom office, and the names given are those of the telecom's sysadmins in charge of managing the IPs. I don't think 3RR applies explicitly to talk-pages, and if the IP user is doing all that reversion simply to get their voice heard, then let's hear it and respond to it directly, as I see we've now done below. Deryck C. 23:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Banned users have no voice to be heard. They can be reverted by anyone as many times as necessary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That discussion is now archived at Talk:Chinese civilization. It took me awhile to figure it out. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hbdragon88 may i know where the archive is now located? 119.236.141.26 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Chinese civilization - though the move discussion has now been archived to Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive_26#Requested_move_August_2011. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 116.49.131.73 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

First I don't understand why the closing admin had decided in this way. The community were clearly very divided. It should certainly be closed as no concensus. Second articles should follow Wikipedia rules and conventions. If anything as such has to be changed, the rules and conventions should be changed before the articles are changed. All China-related articles have now become very confusing. If nothing is done to undo the mess the problem will have to be brought to the ArbCom. 119.236.141.26 (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Because of the complexity of the move request there were three closing admins, not one. Their discussion is here. Their closing statements are at the top of the move, at the link given above. I suggest you read their statements to understand why the move was agreed. I would disagree it has made things confusing: quite the opposite as the article now at China is much better, and much clearer, than what was there before.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

History?

Can someone here enlighten me on why there's history of "Dynastic rule" section in the history as if the PRC is the legitimate sole successor of it? And why on earth would anyone put "Republic of China (1912–49)"? It just ruins the NPOV atmosphere we had awhile ago. Really boggles my mind..--LLTimes (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the way that other sources treat the subject. Read any popular history of China book and you'll see some imperial China, then the ROC (1912-1949), then the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 and PRC history up to the present day. This is conventional and logical. The idea is to provide helpful general information so that our readers will get an overview of the relevant history. seems pretty WP:NPOV to me. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the history of China. If the PRC and China are merged, then it should be setup like that, but currently it isn't. The change was made by EreaserHead1 without gaining consensus first. T-1000 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to gain explicit consensus before making edits. I for one strongly support the addition. There is no valid reason to not include history before 1949, that information is useful to the reader and it belongs on the page. The previous setup implies that the PRC appeared out of nowhere on October 1, 1949, not very helpful. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 22:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The history of China is also the history of the PRC; this is not just my opinion but the unanimous opinion of the relevant reference materials on China, as metal.lunchbox points out. Quigley (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A simple introduction towards the subject beforehand will help ease the confusions you are describing. You can talk a bit about Qing's transition to a Republic then civil war then to PRC establishment. However, I do not think adding massive amounts of history from China will help anything other than more arguments. Because then, we have to add the exact same history to ROC history section. Adding the history only in PRC's page not only ruins the NPOV aspect but also suggests that Republic of China already ended...which is not the case. --LLTimes (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add the same history to ROC, then that is your prerogative, but you should discuss that at Talk:Republic of China and not here. Adding ROC history to the PRC page does not suggest that the Republic of China already ended any more than the Pakistani history on Bangladesh suggests that Pakistan ended. Quigley (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that this discussion is the same one as the China talk page one, it is best to wait until the RM is closed first. T-1000 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your massive blanking changed the status of the page which was stable before the RM, so why don't (didn't) you wait until the RM is closed before trying to remove all that history? Quigley (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't stable as LLTimes objects to it, therefore Ereaserhead should have gain consensus first. But anyway, if there is no consensus to merge PRC and China, this page will remain solely about PRC and Ereaserheads edits will be reverted anyway. T-1000 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding ancient Chinese history to the PRC article is not the same thing as a merge (which would be PRC → China anyway), and is not dependent on a merge result. Quigley (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The opposition to it are the same (treating PRC as legitimate successor), therefore, it's the same debate, whether you like it or not. T-1000 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How does giving the history of how it formed legitimise it as a successor? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The question of legitimacy is completely irrelevant here. We're providing history, not making political declarations, if that history isn't convenient for some political views so be it, that is none of our concern. If you think that the RM should be resolved first then the history should be restored, as that was the stable version before the RM at Talk:China. Since everyone so far involved except, T-1000 appears to agree that the history should at least include the Republican era, there is clearly so far consensus not unanimity on the matter. also, that some information can be found elsewhere on wikipedia is not a valid rationale for blanking. Let's leave hypothetical future merge requests out of this and instead discuss whether or not the material should be included, based on this article as it is right now. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Move discussions go back to at least July, these changes were added on August 20. Hence, the stable version before the discussions is the one without Ereaserhead1's changes. T-1000 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

In general the move discussions go back to the Precambrian, that doesn't account for the fact that the article needs to include a little history before October 1, 1949 and it doesn't. How is the reader supposed to understand the topic this way? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am specifically talking about this discussion, which was started in June of 2011 by Ereaserhead1. The previous discussion were in March 2010. The article was stable and people didn't have trouble understanding it for 1 and 1/4 years. T-1000 (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you are suggesting that no further improvements can be made to this article. Maybe we should have it fully protected then. It should include some history like reliable sources do (here's an example). You can talk about whatever move discussion you want but this article could be improved with the addition of some history and there's no reason it shouldn't. And there are others like myself who agree explicitly that it should be done. Only you stand in the way for some reason. Let's move on shall we. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with you is that you don't read past discussions. The difference between the regime and the land/Civilization is a controversial matter that have come up again and again during past discussions. The analogy of "US vs. America" and "ROC/Japan vs. Taiwan" has been used. You can disagree, but you must realize that a dispute exist. Telling people not to "stand in the way" is pointless, since I am pretty sure the opposers feel the same way about you. T-1000 (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I'm sure that the discussion will be more productive if we stick to content and policy and avoid commenting on individual editors. I have not read all previous discussions and I am not going to. Consensus can change. This isn't the Supreme Court of the United States where previous decisions are binding precedent. If you look at the current discussion on this issue which is what matters, you will see that the participants other than yourself all agree that the history section should be expanded. Just stating that there is a controversy is not an argument, if you think the history section should not be expanded for some good reason then it is up to you to form a meaningful argument, ideally making some reference to more than just your own opinion. The People's Republic of China is commonly known as "China", so PRC history books and articles are often labelled as "History of China" or some variation. It is extremely uncommon for them to start on October 1, 1949. It should be obvious why that is not common. On Wikipedia we tend to have histories which go back beyond the current official name of the country, see Republic of Ireland(1801), South Korea (2333 BCE), United Kingdom (about 30,000 years ago), and United States (12,000-40,000 years ago) for instance. I will admit that this is somewhat complicated semantically by own current insistence on using the official name instead of the common name for this article but the issue is really quite simple, we need to extend the history a bit to provide better context. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added some content to the history section which I hope will be accepted as a valid compromise. I have summed up 221 BC to the Taiping rebellion in 2 short sentences. There's a an explanation of the collapse of the Qing dynasty and there for the end of Imperial China, Then the Republican era which explains whah the ROC is where the PRC regime might have come from, the Civil War, second sino-japanese war, etc. Without this kind of content there just isn't an effective summary. The PRC regime didn't descend from Heaven on the eve of October 1, 1949, so we have to give some background if the reader is to understand. Again other sources do the same thing. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning pre-1949 stuff should be limited to the 1920s communist party or the struggles the members had during the ROC era. Anything before that wouldn't fit into the History of the People's Republic of China, let alone the frontpage People's Republic of China. Benjwong (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to accept Metal lunchbox's compromise, maybe we should start a RfC for community comment on whether the history section should include dynastic and republican history. Quigley (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that T-1000's point in general is a valid one, that the extend of the history depends on the scope of the article and there is a larger process in the works refocus the scope of the article with respect to other top-level china-related articles like China. I strongly disagree that such a process means we can't include any history prior to 1949, but eventual decisions about moving or merging the article to China will directly affect the history. This is to say that it seems logical to address the bigger issue of the scope of the history, should it be limited to the events leading up to the establishment of the PRC and after or should it be a summary of chinese history up to the present, should be addressed in this larger discussion at Talk:China and not through RfC. RfC's on China-related topics become arguments about abstract political issues, a mess to avoid if possible. I am, however willing to be convinced that an RfC is useful here. The compromise that I proposed accepts that for better or for worse the scope of the article is currently limited, but the reader just needs a little background. What Benjwong is proposing is basically the same, just much more restricted. The question that I have is why. Why is it so important that we do not include any information about the collapse of imperial China and the process that lead to the establishment of the PRC on Oct 1 1949? We're inclusive with most other topics why does this one have to be so strictly defined? I would prefer that we have a compromise that we can accept as an improvement even if its not ideal. Nothing is permanent and this is just one step in the right direction. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Benjwong's proposal is unlike yours in that he wants to start the PRC with the history of the CPC; ergo, the PRC is an acultural, ahistorical, temporary tyrannical interruption to the ROC, which is the true heir of the title of China. With a RfC, it would be recognized that these fringe, absolutist views preventing the PRC from claiming any Chinese cultural history are exactly that. Quigley (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that, I just find these RfC's very unpleasant and was hoping that there was a chance we'd form a consensus around the compromise version that I've put together and move on from there as I think that would save us all a lot of grief. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The pre-1949 section is deviating too far from what matters. A 221BCE unification or Taiping heavenly kingdom does not have more impact in PRC establishment than nanking massacre for example. If you mention anything having to do with imperial China, it should go no further back than late Qing. Somewhere around May 4th movement is really where to draw the line. It would even be a good idea to get the history of the People's Republic of China article going before having a pre-1949 section on the frontpage at all. Benjwong (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing further back than the late Qing but two short sentences which just give minimal context to a subsequent discussion of the collapse of Imperial China leading to revolution, aftermath, and eventually the establishment of the PRC. What's the harm in that? It can certainly be improved but we shouldn't be so restrictive as to exclude any mention of events prior to 1919 as you are now suggesting. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your justification for adding the brief pre-1949 section to history, but my concern is that there's very little reference provided, and whole paragraphs of text go unreferenced. Would you mind adding them, especially for potentially controversial statements like Qing engaged in imperialistic expansion into Central Asia in the 19th century? Zanhe (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The section definitely needs sourcing and copy-editing, but I wasn't going to do all of that if the whole section was going to be summarily deleted. I've copied most of it from a previous edit which was blanked. Maybe certain parts could also be improved by using more of a summary style, with less detail, while other parts might need a little expansion. I'm not just going to leave this work up to everyone else but I don't want to go to all the trouble just to see the section immediately blanked as it was before. Maybe someone can reassure me that there is in fact consensus to keep the material and so any blanking will be reverted. If so then we can move on and bring the section up to standards. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is not an issue of source or standard. It just needs to reduce to only events that have direct effect on the foundation of the PRC. Benjwong (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that the material needs bringing up to standards, and that can't really be done if its going to be deleted, I would support further compromise ( a more restricted scope for pre 1949 history) in order to put aside this discussion for now and continue to improve the article. The thing is, its not just me and Benjwong in this discussion. So I might not be staking out a compromise that everyone agrees to, so speak up. In order to better match with the suggestion of Benjwong I'm proposing to edit the section to minimise content prior to the May 4th movement. The collapse of the Qing would still be there but as a very brief summary instead of the detailed paragraphs we have now. How about a single brief paragraph for 221BC to 1919. We need to mention that Imperial China existed, that the Qing dynasty collapsed and was toppled in 1911-12 with the Revolution establishing the ROC and then we can get into the parts of the Republican era which are uncontroversially directly and clearly related to the establishment of the PRC. Do we support this or should we move ahead with what is already in the section? I think what's there is a little more to work with and is helpful to the reader but I'm willing to make a compromise if that will help. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 07:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

221BC is so far back. Is like an article on president Obama, but somehow need to mention George Washington. It just looks like over-doing it. If you want to do a few rounds of minimize cleanup please do. I likely won't edit this for a long while. Benjwong (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just a single line about the beginning of Imperial China. The rest of it is from the 19. century and forward. The history section of the United States article starts at the migration of the Native Americans to the continent more than 10,000 years ago, even though the modern state did not exist until less than 250 years ago. So I would say the current solution is pretty much the bare minimum of what you would expect in terms of previous history.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The history section definitely needs expanding with at least a paragraph or two on pre 1800 history like basically every other country article. If we don't want to include all the content from China to include a significant portion of it. If the ROC article needs more history too go for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

With the article now titled "China", it's now unambiguous that the scope of the section should match other histories labeled as "History of China" that is to say, it needs expansion. I do not, however believe that we need to copy content over from History of China. We must stick to summary style to avoid the history section dwarfing the rest of the article. I'd like to work on this but I'm gonna wait to see how the big changes shape up, It seems likely that we'll have a viable merge request. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Republic of China hatnote

How could anyone read this article and get confused with the Republic of China? If they don't know what the ROC is called they will go to Taiwan. If not it seems unbelievably unlikely that they would come here.

Obviously if this article is moved to "China" that changes and this would have to be reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I have tended to agree with you on a lot of China related controversies but I have to admit that the "Republic of China" a name which one might come across in popular sources is so very similar to the "People's Republic of China" that a hatnote seems appropriate. I look at WP:NAMB and don't know whether guidelines say we need a hatnote or not in this case. Seems like a close call, but I'm putting my tentative vote in for "keep". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait for the move request to be completed. Then I might seek a third opinion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is now moot. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity (following up on my comment above), I concur that this issue is moot after the move. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I just removed all but what's there now: it was far too long and unclear, defeating the purpose of the hatnote which is anyone getting here by mistake via PRC or China can easily see where to find the page they were after via either Dab page. As per WP:RELATED related topics should go in the article: in the body text, in their own sections with a {{main}} link or in the 'See also' section as appropriate, though both already appear in the introduction so probably nothing else needs to be added.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been restored. Again the point of the hatnote is not to link to related articles. The hat note quickly becomes too unwieldy and difficult to read, especially as there's no limit on what could be added (why not also "mainland China"?). As per WP:RELATED related topics should be included in the body of the article, where it can be made clear how they are related. Topics with a very similar name should be added to the disambiguation page or pages. Those should appear in the hatnote, but anything else is excessive and defeats the purpose of the hat notes.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you participated in the discussions, but I think the somewhat extensive hatnote was a part of the compromise made when this page was moved to it's current title. A lot of the opposition against the move centered around the view that if this article was called "China", readers would not be properly informed about the (alleged) dispute over the meaning of the term "China", especially in relation to the cross-strait relations. So the hatnote is there to try to solve that problem in way which gives due weight to the different positions in that dispute. It was suggested during the discussions that the hatnote could be made into an expandable one, so as not clutter up the article too much. I must say I would prefer it if each of the hatnotes could be contained within one line.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I anticipate these articles evolving to eliminate the need for such a hatnote. Two things in particular. Chinese Civilization may be eliminated with the idea that its contents are more suitable in a variety of related articles where they have a more logical context such as History of China, Culture of China, and China. Second the ROC article may be split into a history article at Republic of China (1912-1949) and the remainder of the ROC article which will focus more on the modern state commonly known as "Taiwan". This would eliminate the need for the part of the hatnote about controlling China from 1912-1949 as this article's history section would include a summary of that 1912-1949 article and a Main link at the head of the section. Then the hatnote could focus on the current Republic of China in a clear and concise manner. I think that would be ideal but we are not there yet. In the mean-time I think its appropriate to keep the hatnote, as consensus appeared to support it in our previous discussions about what would happen after the PRC article was moved to "China". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 20:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I did participate at the start, but largely left it alone after !voting and making a couple of comments. Reviewing the discussion since then I see there are a few suggestions on including a hatnote but no real discussion. An 'expandable hatnote' is suggested but I'm not sure what is meant by that. Someone pointed to the examples of Italy, Egypt, Germany, India] but they are all much shorter, much more like the version I changed it to, with one or two links, all but one of them to DAB pages.

There are links to the ROC in the article and on the DAB page, so users will have no problems finding the ROC article. The proper place to describe any dispute is in the article or articles; only there can it be given appropriate weight, and the nature of the dispute properly described: in the case of the ROC it's far more complex than a simple dispute over the name. Attempting to even partly address this in the hatnote leads to a very unwieldy hatnote, as is now there: it should fit on one line, so with the 'PRC' hatnote there are only two lines.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think given the history a reasonably extensive hatnote to the ROC article is fair enough. Given the move the civilisation article needs one too as people might well want to see that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue with most of what you say, JohnBlackburne, but only point out that as wordy as the current hatnote is, its not actually all that long. Thankfully, the hatnote does not attempt to explain cross-strait relations as that would require more text than is appropriate for such a note. I'd prefer a slightly shorter hatnote eventually but its not actually a big problem, just slightly more text than the normal hatnote. An 'expandable hatnote' would just be a collapsible wikitable collapsed by default. I think generally the best way to address the issue of cross-strait relations is with a summary-style section in the body of the article with a Main link at the top. Though we'll probably find that consensus also supports some kind of disabmig hatnote for the Republic of China as well. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'given the history'. If you mean the history of China and Taiwan, that is not the purpose of a hatnote. As well as WP:RELATED see also Wikipedia:Hatnote#Legitimate information about the topic: "Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself". It does not belong in the hatnote. The length issue is that the italic formatting which makes it stand out also makes it difficult to read. A word or a few words of italics is not too bad, especially as most hatnotes are fairly consistent so vary little. Doing something so different in size and content makes it much less clear and so less useful.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Because of the very recent move we would appear to need a link to Chinese civilization. Obviously we need a China (disambiguation) link. and ROC link is a compromise meant to satisfy the desires of a group of editors active on this page and who participated in the move discussion. Do you agree that we need these three links in the hatnote? If so, maybe you can propose an alternative text which is more concise? - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 22:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see though that a move requires such a hatnote; I can't see any discussion in the move process, just a few proposals, some with examples as I mentioned before, some suggesting an expandable one (still not sure what that is - does anyone know of any page using one?) among the many for move/against move points. No real discussion or clear consensus on which is best or what the content should be.

Once a move is done it is noted on the talk page (there was a note at the top of this page on past move discussions which should be updated) and on policy pages, and of course in archives, but not on article pages. There is no need to link to previous articles that were here, except very often as here the names are related so they are connected through the Dab page, as is Republic of China. The topics are also related so there are links on the page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, let's see what other editors have to say about this. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JohnBlackburne; the hatnote is for navigational confusion, not history, which is already explained in the lead and rest of the article. For the hatnote's contents, China (disambiguation) is a given, Chinese civilization should be there just for a little while, to give editors time to adjust themselves and their wikilinks, and Republic of China should not be there at all because that article's primary focus is on Taiwan. Some other article that deals primarily with historical China, not Taiwan today, such as History of the Republic of China or Republic of China (1912-1949) is a more appropriate choice if you want a third link. Quigley (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added a notice about the recent move at the top of the talk page for both articles as per JohnBlackburne's statement above. I wouldn't mind keeping the hatnote link for a couple of days while though to deal with temporary confusion. History belongs in the history section which currently needs significant work. as for the relevant history of ROC links I have recommended that the current ROC article's pre 1949 history be split off into a new Republic of China (1912-1949) article which would allow for easy summary-style inclusion here, instead of awkward linking and explanation in hatnote. see discussion . - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 05:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the civilisation link needs to be kept until that article is folded into other articles or a year or so. There will be a lot of external and internal broken links for which people may want to view that article.

Under the spirit of compromise given the fact that we had this situation with having the China civilisation page here for so long means at least within the community there is confusion. Ireland has a hatnote to Northern Ireland even though there is no real legitimate confusion of those terms. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 05:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems the hatnote to the ROC was removed after our discussion, only to be readded and tinkered with to leave three lines. Again the point of a hatnote is to help readers who end up at an article via search or a redirect get to the article they were actually looking for, via a direct link if there is only one such article or via a disambiguation page or pages if there are many. It is not for related topics, which should be mentioned in the body of the article: in the lead if they are important or prominent topics such as the ROC.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Chinese for China

Can someone please add, in the first sentence right after the word China I would have thought (as is common practice for articles on countries), the Chinese for "China" (possibly with a link to somewhere where the inevitable complications are discussed)?--Kotniski (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Chinese for "China" is easier said than done. There is no one word. The most general would be "中国". I'll try to address this in an appropriate way. Thanks for bringing this up. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, in the meantime I tried doing it myself (using information from Names of China). Would be good if you could take a look and correct if necessary.--Kotniski (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why duplicate the name in traditional characters, which makes it lengthy and confusing? The box at the top of this talk page points to this proposal, referencing this talk page archive, where there doesn't seem to be a consensus. In fact, the dictum to always provide both traditional and simplified—which is only ever really enforced against simplified subjects, like this one—seems to be entirely the opinion of User:Jiang (His reasoning: "Even if traditional readers can somehow decipher simplified, some may find the communist font repulsive.") Since this article is about the PRC, I've removed them. Quigley (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to do the same but you beat me to it. The language box to the right provides all kinds of transcriptions of the name, including traditional chinese. This is just a quick note about the local name and since traditional characters aren't often used in the PRC its not worth the extra length to include them. The gain in readability far outweighs the hypothetical loss of ... inclusiveness. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 07:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not even sure we need that language box, it seems to rather overdo it. The official language is Chinese (Mandarin), written in simplified script. Details of different scripts and languages should be kept to the main names article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Tibetan, Zhuang and Mongol are official languages of the (PR of) China. This is dictated by law as well as convention. I think the language box should stay as it is. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

They're official languages in some autonomous regions, but not of the country as a whole. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The namebox isn't hurting anyone or doing any harm, and it is better to include information than to exclude it. Plus, removing the minority language names is Han-centric in a sense, and might imply to readers that China is ethnically homogenous, to which it is certainly not. The Renminbi notes, list the main minority languages, among other things; the Resident Identity Cards in minority areas officially use the 5 main minority languages as well. Comparatively, the article at Singapore uses its Tamil name, and within Singapore Tamil is even printed everywhere, on street signs and public locator maps, even though less than 4% of the population actually speak Tamil. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't see minority languages in Russia, India, Vietnam, United States or Mexico articles, and China is certainly much more homogenous than those countries(in fact with over 90% one ethnic group China is more homogenous than most World's countries). That box should be removed.Shared32d (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a large box that stretches far down the page (in my monitor) and could be replaced by much better items, such as another image in history. It wouldn't imply China is ethnically homogenous any more than only having English in Australia implies Australia is ethnically homogenous. In fact, the absence wouldn't imply anything at all. I haven't seen a similar box on any country article. Note that Singapore has four official languages, of which Tamil is one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's uniform with Republic of China, which also uses Template:Chinese to represent it's official name(s) in various languages and scripts. As for "taking up space", it looks fine on my 1366x768 resolution display, and I'm sure that others view it fine as well. I don't see why we should sacrifice things for those using older hardware; a Steampowered hardware survey showed that 22.59% of Steam users have 1920x1080 displays and 18.29% had 1690x1050 displays; very few people had displays smaller than 1024x768. Sure, this survey isn't a complete population sample, but it is significant. It's like saying "we shouldn't use Chinese script in articles, because East Asian language support without plugins is only possible for those on post Windows XP machines, and some people might still be using Windows 98". As for usage within China, I think that the usage of Mongol, Tibetan, Uyghur and Zhuang is very important, otherwise, why would they be used on RMB banknotes nationwide? Why not just that particular AR? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd suggesting removing it from that article too. Giving every romanisation is unnecessary and overdetailed for either article. China has one official language and script, and I doubt Taiwan is really any different. That's all that is needed for a summary on the country.

I assure you I have a modern computer, the point is that it stretches down into lower sections unnecessarily. All the way into post 1949 history for me right now. We use chinese characters where appropriate and informative sure, but we don't overdo it. This infobox is almost trivia in its importance to the country. And don't ask me to fathom the minds of Chinas leaders. All I know is that the other scripts remain unofficial nationally, and the other romanisations are definitely rare at best within China. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually think that an infobox with "China" spelled in different local languages will fit nicely into the section on the etymology of the word "China", once it gets moved to this article. Although it might be more relevant if it shows how "China" is spelled, instead of how "People's Republic of China" is spelled. That way it would (presumably) also get a bit smaller.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The etymology section

The etymology section needs some loving attention. I just moved it in from Chinese civilization and there are a few important problems with it. It needs to be rewritten as a summary. There's an entire article devoted to the subject we don't need to include every hypothesis about the origin of the word china in this article. We should devote even less space to the explanations of the Chinese names. A clear and concise summary is appropriate. I will attempt to make this change but it would be best if someone could clean up after me. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Much of the politics could also be summarised if it must stay. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've completed the summarizing I had in mind, so if anyone wants to check my work and clean up a bit or adjust the language/organization, that would be much appreciated. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the word origin stuff that you cut out. My sense is that there was a great of interest in this material, certainly more than in Cold War political phrases. It seems relevant that the Sanskrit word for China pre-dates the commonly given explanation for it. Kauffner (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The good news is that no deletion or addition of material is permanent. There's a lot of interesting information about the origin of the names, the point of the edits I made was to reduce the section to a concise summary. I include stuff about "Red China" because that's a word the reader might stumble across, so it's relevant. If you have a better version go for it. I just suggest you try to stick with summary-style as much as practical. A lot needs to be re-written on this page and its getting a lot of attention from editors so WP:BEBOLD, just try to provide an explanation for major edits that aren't obvious. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The History section

Not very long ago this article had a history section which began at 1949. That is clearly no longer appropriate and there is a discussion above about this. I added some stuff, mostly copied from other pages, which I intended to serve as an outline. The entire history prior to 1912 needs to be re-written in a summary style using proper sources. A quick look at the article will show this to be the weakest section. It needs to cover the history at least as far back as the Yellow Emperor all the way up to the revolution, but we have to be careful that the history section doesn't swallow the rest of the article. Over the next several days I'll be working on this and I hope there will be others active there too. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I won't revert again, so I'll explain my first one. The information copied over from the former China article is massive and unsourced. I don't want history to start at 1949 at all, in fact I argued for adding history when this was still at its PRC title. However, as said above, I don't want it to overwhelm the article. We're providing a summary article. Yes, China's history is extraordinarily long in terms of recorded events, but someone looking to delve into that will go to the main history page. All that's needed is a basic overview that quickly shows the reader how China developed to this point. And due to the long history of China, it's going to have to be very basic, as trying to add a little more information for each dynasty or century will have a huge knockon effect.

In the meantime, I'm going to make sure all the information here (even the unsourced parts) are present on the main history article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't even think the history section as it is now is that long. If you compare it with the history section of the France article or the United States article, I actually think it's a bit shorter. It is a problem that the history section currently isn't that well sourced. But I think it's better to have some unsourced history than nothing at all.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just about every section in France is massively overbloated, so that's not a good comparison. The United States (a good article, so better than France to compare to) history section I've always thought too long, but even if it wasn't, it only takes up four lengths of my screen, whereas what we have here takes up five lengths of my screen and is basically unsourced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The length of the history section of featured country articles vary, but the history section is usually one of the largest sections. Many of the other sections can be trimmed first. Quigley (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think comparing it to the United States is fair... The history of the United States is relatively shorter in span compared to that of China. A main country article should cover the basic idea of that country's history, and have further detail in a separate history article; I don't see how excluding 2,000+ years of history and starting from the 19th Century satisfies a "basic idea" of Chinese history. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't expect the History section to be perfect today. Writing a good summary of 5,000 years of history with proper sourcing is not an easy task, and it won't be done in one shot. Earlier there was some back and forth reverting between a very long version and a very short version, but neither of them is up to standards. Either will be good as a starting point, but we have to settle on one and move on. The article currently uses the long version and I think that will be a more productive starting point, so we should stick with it. In general I think its a little too long and not adequately sourced but fixing that will probably be easier than starting from scratch. Also, in the mean time its nice for readers to have a complete history to look at, even if its poorly sourced, and a little too long. The other one reads "In 221 BCE Qin Shi Huang unified China, then in the late 19th century...", okay so that's not an actual quote but you get the point. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you mention Qin Shi Huang... the current article states "The first unified Chinese state was established by Qin Shi Huang of the Qin state in 221 BC". While this is a widely stated concept (much like the "5000 year history") it is unclear what it means (much like the "5000 year history). Was there a concept of China prior to 221 that consisted of separate states? Did those states recognize each other as "Chinese" as opposed to other states around them that were not recognized as being Chinese? Or did he unify some states with the result that those states were from then on called "Chinese"? For the statement to have any factual meaning to the user, it needs to be explained. Readin (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

These statements are conventional and can be found all the secondary sources. But a Chinese state and culture already existed under the Shang, a thousand years before the Qin. Qin Shi Huang is often called "the first emperor". This is a free translation of his Chinese name, which can be more accurately translated as "First emperor of Qin." There were certainly Chinese emperors before Qin Shi Huang. As for "5000 years of history," this has more to with numerology than with anything that happened 5,000 years ago. Kauffner (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Marking any date as the beginning of China is problematic. The name 中国 (zhongguo) was used as far back as the Zhou dynasty but that use of the word is probably better translated as the "central states". Those states were unified into a chinese empire by Qin Shi Huang. Anyways the whole thing section needs to be rewritten as it is mostly unsourced, not completely accurate, and needs general copy-editing. We might want to mention 5000 years by stating that "it is often said that China has 5000 years of continuous history." instead of trying to stake a direct claim in WP voice. Given the state of the history section I recommend everyone be WP:BOLD. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 04:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We could gradually incorporate references into that largely unreferenced history section as we go, amending information where fit. Currently the situation here is messy due to the sudden changes; once things start to settle down, then we can focus on the quality of the article, and perhaps bring it to a standard fit enough for a GA nomination. As for now, the history section seems okay enough; Rome wasn't built in a day, and it'll take time for the article contents to adjust. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The move was surprising - 7 opinions on the move

I'm truly surprised that the move from PRC to China is done.

No consensus, no professional to make the final decision

I don't see a clear consensus in Talk:Chinese civilization#Requested move August 2011. The request was eventually evaluated by a few admins then ultimately done, it was kind of irresponsible of that. The issue about the names of "China" and PRC's articles should be treated exactly the same way as Ireland and Republic of Ireland - discussing in WP:WikiProject China, by guys who care and have good knowledge about 1992 Consensus, One-China policy, Two Chinas, Political status of Taiwan, etc. Also, for such highly influential articles, there should be a pretty strong consensus to make the move.

"China"'s just like "Ireland"

I don't feel any bad when someone calls Republic of Ireland "Ireland". Especially in Chinese, if you google "爱尔兰" ("Ireland" in Chinese), you'll be given a nice introduction about the country with a pretty flag of that country by articles from Baidu Baike and Xinhua News Agency, but not Chinese Wikipedia, which will show a disambiguation for zh:爱尔兰 because of the NPOV things. I think that the name of "China" and "Ireland" are exactly the same case. Perhaps what Chinese Wikipedia does with "Ireland" may be a consultation or an example for English Wikipedia to do with "China".

What's the WP:POVTITLE?

Lots of guys who supported the move mentioned WP:POVTITLE. I don't think WP:POVTITLE fits here. WP:POVTITLE gives some example: Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal, all of them are historical, and don't actually have a current POV problem, there's few debate on them currently existing, does the UK still deny the massacre, or does German still deny the rape? But the name of "China" is an ongoing problem. Although even Taiwanese people commonly use China for PRC, the government still officially refuses to use and avoid using "China", so does countries with foreign relations with ROC. It's really a big amount of influential organizations officially not for "China=PRC", it should be respected by Wikipedia.

Editors who care about articles on PRC-ROC relation will feel sick about that

If you want to edit 1992 Consensus and you need to link to People's Republic of China, now you have to link to China, that's sick. How can someone, who calls PRC "China" and links PRC to China, compile such articles with a real NPOV? Consensus said "both sides agree to verbally express the meaning of that one China" (PRC can represent "China", ROC can represent "China" also), but English Wikipedia already defines "China" as PRC, that's embarrassing.

Further problems for China-related articles

Because of the irresponsible move, there are a lot of incoming links, which should link to Chinese civilization, link to China. We are facing more than that. Should Emblem of China redirect to National Emblem of the People's Republic of China, Flag of China and List of Chinese flags redirect to Flag of the People's Republic of China? Also some more titles and texts need to be "corrected".

Then why not move ROC to Taiwan?

Now that PRC was moved to China, then why not move Republic of China to Taiwan? That's also a question. It's really weird that "PRC" rests in China while "Republic of China" is still Republic of China rather than Taiwan. Do you feel confused if someone says something like "China and Republic of China"? We've got exactly the same reason for both moves: China/Taiwan is the "common English name" for People's Republic of China/Republic of China. We've got an article Republic of China (1912-1949) for Republic of China when it still ruled Mainland China. So why not move the current Republic of China to Taiwan? It is not fair and doesn't fit the common English name if not moved; if moved, more POV problem may appear since many people deny "Taiwan" as a state (related to Taiwan independence). That's the trouble all caused by the move from PRC to China.

It seems most Chinese here oppose the move

I've read the debate of the move request, also on the talk page of PRC at Chinese Wikipedia, It seems most Chinese Wikipedians (incl. that from Mainland China, Hongkong and Taiwan) here oppose the move. Intersting thing is that, I also found some guy, who according to their user page, may tend to support the PRC and the communist to represent the only one China, but don't want Wikipedia to make the PRC's title "China". I think they may be worry about Taiwan independence (see previous section). However, 1992 Consensus is not a bad compromise to all Chinese guys supporting Chinese reunification or Taiwan independence, or who doesn't care about these two and just want the current status remained.

So, I just want to say those and walk away, you guys may re-think about the move. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of these points have already all been discussed, but I'd like to respond to the first point. I'm also a bit surprised by the move, but in a good way. I suppose this case is evidence that ultimately decisions in Wikipedia are not merely determined by a democratic vote.. The arguments themselves must be scrutinized. Normally it only takes one administrator to evaluate the arguments and come to a decision (much like a judge would in court). In this case three different admins independently came to the same decision, based on the arguments presented in the discussion. I think this case is a good demonstration of Wikipedia's effective decision making procedures.

Also, I should point out that as of today, the Ireland debate rages on (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration). Hopefully that discussion comes to a relatively conclusive end, much like this one did. Mlm42 (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I can't speak of the other two members of the triumvirate, but I will comment on some of the points you raised:

• You're right there was no consensus on the talk page but there were also many requests for the move to be done. That's why it was a triumvirate was formed - to try and hash out a more lasting decision if possible.
• Ireland didn't really play into my thinking - so many of the other places that were brought up as examples had differing implementations (e.g., Ireland is different from Macedonia) that I felt it distracted from the core issue which was "is PRC = China?"
• I did consider POVTITLE. As I said in my decision, "moving .. would reflect the practical use of the name (China)" which is the point of POVTITLE. To quote from it: "When the subject of an article is referred mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title" and the most common use of the word "China" with regards to geography is to the PRC.
• Believe me, the biggest initial concern I had was the issue of incoming links. But it's kind of like removing a bandage - you know it's gonna hurt but you also know you gotta take it off at some point.
• Why was ROC not moved to Taiwan? Wasn't part of the question, which was essentially "Should People's Republic of China be renamed to just China"?
• This is EN, not ZH - what happens on one version of Wikipedia is not necessarily what will happen on another. One glaring example I can bring up offhand is fair-use images - EN allows them, DE doesn't. Another is the article for Aja (entertainer) - the article name for her on DE is her alleged real name. But since EN doesn't have a reliable source for it, we can't use the name in our own article, and we have to manually fix the links so said "real name" doesn't show up. We will respect the other language versions of Wikipedia but we will follow our rules.

Does that clarify things? Tabercil (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As Mlm42 said, most of your arguments against the move were expressed and addressed in the move discussion. People's Republic of China still works as a redirect, so you can still use the long form when justified, as in your example; even if it didn't, you could pipe appropriate links. Personally I think that many articles named "X in China" that are disambiguation pages between "X in PRC" and "X in ROC" should redirect to "X in PRC", but those are currently handled on a case-by-case basis. Quigley (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Passports of China

The ROC Passport still has "China" on it.

I agree with Tomchen's points. Having a "China" that means only the PRC and a "Republic of China (Taiwan)" as mutually exclusive categories and ideas is untenable. The confusing situation will get worse, not better, with the passage of time. We've got a centennial for the Xinhai Revolution coming up in three weeks, followed by the centennial of the founding of the Republic of China on January 1, 2012. These are events that people in the PRC, ROC, HKG and Macau will all be celebrating. As the China of the past reenters discourse of the present, we can't have China = PRC in all instances except when it means the ROC because pre-1949, China was ROC. And the pre-1949 China that is getting celebrated in 2011 by PRC and ROC, is not PRC, as all Chinese understand. Just look at the passports, Tabercil, both states use their official full names. Neither of them say just "China" so China can't just mean one state and only one state. ContinentalAve (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

For the Republic of China from 1912 to 1949, we have the article Republic of China (1912–1949). However, the current Republic of China article is clearly about Taiwan, hence "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Quigley (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how creating Republic of China (1912–1949) to go along with Republic of China (1912-present) resolves anything. If anything, it causes more confusion because the main ROC article says the ROC, "founded in 1912, is the oldest surviving republic in East Asia." (emphasis added). It doesn't change the fact that "China" can only mean the "People's Republic of China" is problematic. ContinentalAve (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The move discussion has been concluded so let's try not to rehash all the old arguments. Nowhere does it say on wikipedia that "China" can only ever refer to the PRC and nowhere in article title policy is that a requirement for naming. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's like... nobody recognizes the Northern Yuan dynasty after the Ming dynasty reconquered China proper. The modern day Northern Yuan dynasty is like ROC today - yes it may exist, but it's powers and legitimacy is massively diminished, nobody takes ROC's claim to "China" seriously anymore. Phead128 (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Phead128, where should I begin?

The Northern Yuan Mongols remained recognized and important for centuries after the Ming was founded in 1368. Yuan Chunzong Öljei Temür Khan defeated the Ming Yongle Emperor in 1409. In the 1440s, Yuan Daozong Tayisung Khan Toghtoa Bukha and Esen Tayisi, the Oirat chieftain and King of Huai, invaded Ming China, captured the Zhengtong Emperor at Tumu and besieged Beijing. Esen Tayisi later negotiated the return of the Ming Emperor. Yuan Liezong Dayan Khan presided over a Mongol renaissance and invaded Beijing in 1517. His grandson Altan Khan, the founder of Hohhot, raided Beijing in 1550 and prompted the city to build the outer city wall to protect the Temple of Heaven from further raids. Yuan Shenzong Buyan Sechen Khan still held the great seal Yuan Seal when he took the throne in 1592. His grandson Ligdan Khan signed a treaty with the Ming and was paid tribute to fight the Manchus. Ligdan Khan was defeated by none other than Nurhaci in 1621 at Shenyang. Eventually, it took the Manchu Qing Dynasty to finally subdue the Northern Yuan. Without the Northern Yuan, we wouldn't have Badaling and the rest of the Ming Great Wall. Just because most history textbooks in China give passing reference to the Northern Yuan does not mean the dynasty was unimportant.

Back to the topic at hand, the PRC and ROC are tied together much more closely than the Ming and Northern Yuan. The current ruling parties on either side of the Taiwan Straits used to be part of one government on the mainland. They share institutional roots dating back to Soviet-support for Sun Yat-sen and Whampoa Academy. Hence, they both lay claim as the rightful heirs to the Xinhai Revolution and modern China. Zhu Yuanzhang and the Mongol Khans shared no such connection. The legitimacy of the CPC or KMT over China undermines the legitimacy of the other over China. The mainland government is acutely aware of the importance of Taiwan and the government there. At each level of the PRC government down to the county/district level, there is a Taiwan-affairs office that specializes in dealing with Taiwan relations. Why is that? Why isn't there a Taijik-affairs office. The CPC just released claims on tens of thousands of square miles of the Pamir Plateau to Tajikistan and "nobody" seems to care. It's because Taiwan goes to the heart of the standing and legitimacy of the mainland government. The same applies to the ROC government in Taiwan. That's why they've held on to the Palace Museum treasures in the same way Buyan Sechen Khan kept the Great Yuan Seal.

In sum, don't shortchange the Northern Yuan and get informed before claiming that "nobody cares" about the ROC's claim over China. ContinentalAve (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

To aboves: I knew some of my points were expressed in the move discussion, but I think I did have some new opinions. The examples given by WP:POVTITLE - Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal were not discussed and analysed, WP:POVTITLE doesn't apply for "China", these historical examples are not comparable with the ongoing "China" problems.

ROC moving to Taiwan is part of the question. Under the influence of the highly influencial move, a lot of articles will have a change, you can't avoid that, that includes ROC. Actually User:Quigley did create Republic of China (1912–1949) just after the move of PRC/China, making "the current Republic of China article is clearly about Taiwan" (sic, see his post above). He may have intent to move ROC to Taiwan. The reason is clearly the "common English name", just like the move here.

Also another question similar to moving ROC to Taiwan: many English news uses "China and Taiwan", putting them together (actually that is "PRC and ROC"), so should that use be avoided in En Wikipedia? If it should be avoided (the draft guidelines tend to avoid such an use), why? We moved PRC/China due to such a common usage, and we cannot actually apply the common usage? If it shouldn't, it may cause more POV problems.

I can see that a lot of people who really study and care about these China/Taiwan's political status problems don't like this move. Those people includes people who support Chinese reunification (by PRC side), who support Chinese reunification (by ROC side), who support Taiwan independence, and who want the current status remained, that's kind of interesting:

• People who support Chinese reunification (by PRC side): they support the idea "PRC represent the only 'China'", but they dislike the common usage in English, especially when someone calls "China and Taiwan". (I've discuss this kind in my previous post)
• People who support Chinese reunification (by ROC side): Obviously an opposition.
• People who support Taiwan independence: these people may support the move, excerpt that, a very common propaganda of PRC (actually it can be the main slogan of PRC against Taiwan independence) says that: "Taiwan is part of China since ancient times" (台湾自古以来是中国的一部分). If thought about the history of China, perhaps that may be true. But, this tricky propaganda has a hidden precondition: China=PRC. We cannot replace "China" by "PRC" here since that "China" has a historical meaning, "Taiwan is part of the PRC since ancient times", this is very wrong. But now you guys just put China equal to PRC, that's very good for such a propaganda who want you to confuse these words.

There're a lot of POV thing a serious editor should consider about. There used to be a perfect compromise, discussing the civilization in article China since long long ago, but you guys have just messed it up.

If in future, government of ROC/Taiwan send a complain mail to Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised of that at all. At that time, what will you do with them? Ignore them or laugh at them? --Tomchen1989 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The previous situation was not a "perfect compromise". Tons of people complained about it; there were monthly move requests, and it required edit warring to enforce. It gave massive undue weight to a fringe position, and it confused many people for the benefit of a few. Isn't it telling that you're worried that the ROC government might complain to Wikipedia, but you're not concerned about what the PRC government thinks? Quigley (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's POV because you guys make it POV. In reality, the title of China doesn't specify sovereignty, but you guys make it a problem about sovereignty, so that's POV to begin with. The "PRC=China" title satisfies the 99% of the practical use of the term "China" whereas anyone who want to know more can obviously read ROC also claims the title of China, and make their own judgement or opinion about it. Yes, "PRC=China" is POV, but so long as it's mention that ROC claims the title of China somewhere in the intro, then you are fine. Phead128 (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be useful to understand that the move satisfied a long-developing community consensus as confirmed by three admins independently and collectively and then think about what can be done to improve the article as it is. Its a shame that such an important article isn't even up to Good article standards. It will take some work to get there. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this sentiment. The strictures of the previous setup were major impediments to getting this article to GA or FA, and we should now harness the energy of the incredible number of people concerned about this article to improve our coverage of China instead of fighting about it. Quigley (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll add a strong agreement here about getting to GA/FA. The previous China article was described by outside sources as a confusing ill-defined mess. It was setup to mean nothing to anybody. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I MUST protest against the move! The move is a complete violation of neutrality, morality and basic human intellect. A divided Korea has separate articles so why should a divided China be any different? In fact, the PRC claimes to solely represent China but doesn't even recognise itself to be a successor state of former Chinese States, or Confucius for that matter so I see no reason they should be given the right to soley represent China on a website that claims neutrality.Staygyro (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to attract trolls (see directly above me). I'd consider closing it, admins. I wasn't surprised by the move at all. It was logical and well thought out, and kept WP:COMMONNAME in its rightfully esteemed place. The key point regarding "neutrality" is this (from the triumvirate's discussion, User:rbpk): "However, the essence of neutrality on wikipedia is that rather than being conscious[ly] neutral by giving equal weight to all viewpoints in deciding on a title, we leave the decision to usage." Done. Go get some sources and improve other articles, all.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see this page still has idiots who see no sense and does no research and simply just listens to propaganda (see directly above me). The PRC outwardly claims political succession of the Republic of China and Qing Empire, Ming Empire etc but inwardly recognises Marx, Engels and Lenin as it's direct line ancestors. I dont need sources for this, just go to any state-run school in Minland China and you will see not a statue of Confucious or Dr Sun but only of a rogue foreigner Karl Marx.Staygyro (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

None of which is really relevant to the usage of the term "China" in English language usage by basically everyone - including Xinhua and the Taiwanese media to refer to the PRC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Taiwanese media NEVER refer to the mainland as just China unless if it's Pan-Green media. Pan-Blue media use the term Chinese-Mainland. Xinhua is Communist newspaper so thats what they would do.Staygyro (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

All the Taiwanese English language sources use China to refer to the PRC. That's what counts as this is the English language wikipedia. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The KMT administration has a policy against doing so, so anything published by the government will use the term "Mainland China" and "Mainland Chinese" to refer to the PRC, see: [1]. This is not quite the point though. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't merely look to trends in newspapers, but academic journals and books, which are less restrained in space than newspapers. Wikinews has used "China" to refer to the PRC ever since it was founded 6 years ago, while Wikipedia has had its policy in preference of using PRC in place for over 8 years. --Jiang (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And if you take a look at that source it always calls Taiwan "Taiwan" so there is no room for confusion. At best that source's POV would be to put the PRC article at "mainland China" and merely make China a redirect to that page. With regards to academic sources, they may use People's Republic of China to refer to the PRC, but unless they use "China" to refer to something other than the PRC we should stick with the WP:COMMONNAME as per our article titling policy - additionally academic and other serious sources were found referring to the PRC as "China" in the big list of sources, it wasn't just news organisations.

If either Taiwanese or academic sources use "China" to refer to anything other than the PRC, then that evidence should have been presented at the move request in the sources section, a bunch of people claimed that China was used "geographically" and not politically, but were unable to find a single source to backup that claim. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are having this conversation, but there are two logical points to make from this: (1) That the KMT in Taiwan finds a need to add "mainland" in front of every mention of "China" implies that they think there is more to China than what is being referred to as "Mainland China". Otherwise, it would be a pointless exercise to do so. (2) That sources refer to the PRC as "China" does not mean conversely that every mention of "China" refers to the PRC. Of course this can't be the case because China has long existed before the founding of the PRC. Of course I could find thousands of sources using the term "China" that does not implicate the modern PRC, but you'd agree with me that these thousands of sources do exist. Contrast Zimbabwe. --Jiang (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

1) the reason they do so is for POV/political reasons as they officially sometimes call themselves the "one China", otherwise they wouldn't bother using the term "mainland" - however it was found in the list of sources that they occasionally slipped up and used just China to refer to the PRC. If they wanted to really refer to themselves as "China" however then they wouldn't call themselves Taiwan at every opportunity on their homepage. 2) If China was generally used to refer to other things in a modern context then surely those sources would have been found? Obviously people use China to refer to pre-PRC regimes, but the same applies to using Italy to refer to the pre-modern Italian state, and India to refer to states before the republic of India, and we have an article about the modern state at Italy and India respectively. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(1) The reason they refrain from asserting themselves as "China" is because public opinion is divided in Taiwan and doing so would make them utterly unelectable. The range of opinion in Taiwan ranges from a tiny minority that thinks "China is the Republic of China" to a larger minority that thinks "China is the People's Republic of China and Taiwan is not part of it" with a large majority in between that believes in neither. Among these "status quo" supporters, the conception becomes murky, ranging from "China is divided between two governments" to "China is divided between two states" to "I don't care what China is" to "Taiwan is part of the Republic of China but I don't know if the Republic of China is part of China". Of course, almost no one believes "China is the People's Republic of China and Taiwan is not part of it." Calling themselves Taiwan at every instance allows them to capture the middle ground, and in the absence of ideological consensus, is done for the sake of electoral politics. As for the slip-ups, the previous DPP administration had a policy of calling the PRC "China", so the scrubbing of websites might not have thorough enough. (2) I don't disagree with you, but the key phrase is "in the modern context". This does not mean summary style would be out of place given that not every mention of China is "in the modern context".--Jiang (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A few users here have brought up the use and definition of the term "China" in historical (e.g. Qing Dynasty) senses, or in certain English-language Taiwanese newspapers. It's an interesting discussion, but has little to no connection with the article situation. Wikipedia is most concerned with how native English reputable sources and the majority of native language users name certain topics, even if such naming brings up WP:NPOV or bias issues (See Talk:Chinese_civilization/Archive_26#Requested_move_August_2011). Do some English-languages Taiwanese newspapers refer to China by other names? I'm sure they do. However, that is ultimately irrelevant to the naming of the China page on English Wikipedia, because the vast majority of reputable English sources use the term "China" to refer to the PRC and the territory it currently controls. And that's all. See also WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH for more info.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

An argument can be made that the countries template belongs under the term most commonly used for that particular modern entity, and it is true that sources use "China" to refer to the PRC. The logical fallacy lies in the statement that the vast majority of sources refer to the PRC when they use "China".--Jiang (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming by "the countries template" User:Jiang means Template:CHN and others. His pronouncement that "the vast majority of sources refer to the PRC when they say 'China'" is a "logical fallacy" surprises me for two reasons. First, it's incorrect English: a logical fallacy requires a chain of reasoning in the statement ("Because of A, B is true; because of B, C is true") - mine was just a statement of fact ("A is true"). He should have said "is inaccurate" or "is incorrect." Second, I'm a native speaker of English and have significant experience in Chinese research, and my statement was accurate. If User:Jiang, as a non-native speaker, would like to challenge that, let him produce comprehensive and convincing evidence here: something like a statistical survey of major news sources or reputable scholarly publications that clearly demonstrates "China" among most native English speakers does not refer to the PRC.  White Whirlwind  咨  02:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

By countries template I mean the template prescribed by WikiProject Countries (infobox and all). I am a native English speaker and have specialized in Chinese history as an American university student. The logical fallacy I'm pointing at is "If A, then B; therefore if B, then A." That is, "The People's Republic of China is commonly referred to as China; therefore, China must commonly refer to the People's Republic of China." If you go through Google Books, then you will see that the majority of mentions of "China" or "Chinese" do not point to the PRC. (Perhaps if you look at news articles, the vast majority of mentions would point to the PRC.) I do not know the existence of a study that shows what "China" in English commonly refers to - as with proving that it refers to the PRC, the only option is to look at the sources ourselves. Looking at books produces a vastly different result than looking at news articles.--Jiang (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, I see what you meant in the "logical fallacy" - you used it correctly, and I was wrong to correct you on that point.

I browsed through several pages of the Google Books search link, and it's misleading to say the uses of China there "do not point to the PRC." A number of the entries, like Fairbank, Huang, and LaFleur, are historical or cultural surveys, and are using "China" as the books' titles as a specific abbreviation for or pairing with "History of Chinese civilization and culture" or something similar. A numerically equal group use China in the title to refer to an actual, contemporary country itself - like Garnaut/Song, Shirk, and the World Bank (2nd page, 1st entry) - are clearly referring to the PRC (Shirk even has the red flag on the cover). If titles don't also contain "History" or "Culture", they generally refer to the PRC (excepting ones like Boulger (1898), published before 1949). This article, like that second group, has as its subject a contemporary country itself, and not that country's history or culture, though it does touch on them and points to other articles that do have them as their subject. Therefore, this article, which focuses on a country, follows current consensus in using the term "China" to refer to the PRC. If you reject that reasoning, let me just say I feel like this discussion is becoming a hair-splitting contest and we may just have to leave it alone.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding point #6

There's a talk page where it would be entirely appropriate to discuss whether Republic of China should move to Taiwan. It's Talk:Republic of China, and there's some relevant discussion there.

During a previous iteration of the move request, I made some analysis suggesting that parallel moves of "PRC" --> "China" and "ROC" --> "Taiwan" might be a solution worth considering. The general consensus at that time was that ROC is a separate article, and that trying to talk about its name simply muddied the waters here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

the article was merged, not moved!

I think the decision was flawed in that the three admins effectuated an unworkable solution. There was almost no support for moving China to Chinese civilization, so as soon as the move was made, the Chinese civilization article was merged into some other articles. The ultimate effect was a merge, not a move. This was procedurally flawed in that they should have allowed the merge to come about through a requested merge, or to have declared a lack of consensus for a move but allowed a merge as the middle ground, rather than to force an unworkable move and allow the merge to come about as a form of damage control. Admins in this situations, where there was evidently no consensus, did not have a pick a single side to follow - they could have proposed a third avenue in a bid to gain some sort of consensus. Who knows - perhaps a requested merge would have gained slightly more support and been less controversial. --Jiang (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As that wasn't proposed I don't know what else they could have done - it also wasn't clear until afterward that the old status quo was unworkable. Additionally it's pretty clear that the vast majority opposed to the move would have been opposed to a merge too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It was brought up multiple times in the move discussion. If you go to Talk:Chinese_civilization/Archive_26#Merge_instead_of_Move (I linked a relevant section for example), ctrl-f on "summary style" "merge" and "consensus". Some comments stated that perhaps that was where consensus was heading. Perhaps those who opposed the move would have opposed the merge too, but would they have preferred the merge over the move? Perhaps it would have been better consensus-aspiring process to have been able to work on a sandbox on a merged article. I really don't know why this issue was never addressed.--Jiang (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think working on a sandbox article - if one can be created with unique content that cannot be so easily merged away is a good idea. I suggested doing so before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should really think of this as a merge. It is more a clean up after the weird artificial construct which the previous article naming had forced. The Chinese civilization article built mostly on a concept of a multi-state entity which did not exist in the sources which it cited. Therefore the content was either deleted or moved to articles which were actually somewhat about what the sources were about. This article had on the other hand a woefully inadequate history section before the move, forced by a view that this article should only include information about the PRC in the most strictest sense. This however is not how other Wikipedia articles about countries are organized, with only information about the most recent "version" of the country included. So to get this article be more like them, it had a more complete history added. And as this article has had its name changed, it has gotten a short section explaining the origin of that name.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps the solution was to merge the China article into multiple articles? My point is that the solution enacted was unworkable and almost immediately morphed into something else. A more careful reading of the move discussion would have foreseen this, and allowed the ultimate solution to come about through regular processes rather than through haste and damage control.--Jiang (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's basically what happened. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, again, I don't see what has happened since the renaming as damage control. Rather I see it as a series of pent-up edits which were no longer held back by the previous naming of the articles. The Chinese civilization article was little more than a place holder article for the name "China". It had no sources directly about the multi-state entity the article was pertaining be about. The article was mostly kept around for its lead, which functioned to disambiguate the term "China" in a way most pleasing to the views of some editors. So when the article didn't occupy the "China" namespace any longer there wasn't much reason to keep it around. The expansion of the history section in for this article could and should probably already have happened when it was called "People's Republic of China", as it is very unusual to have a country article without a complete history of the geographical territory it is occupying. But after the move the resistance to including a complete history broke down, so the section was expanded.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That should have been in the original proposal. If that was what we were aiming for, then why didn't we just say so to begin with? I'm still perplexed by how the admins who decided on this case didn't realize this from reading the discussion. Even having the China article moved out of the article namespace would hold more procedural integrity. --Jiang (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why all these outcomes had to be foreseen, they were arrived at through consensus during or after the move discussion. If there are parts of what has happened since the move you don't agree should have happened, you are free be bold and revert those things to how they were before, or start a discussion proposing to revert them. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, and there are no procedures which are so important that they should be allowed to stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The move discussion did not produce a clear consensus. The three admins who came along decided to pick a side, without recognizing in their decision that the comments in support of the move only supported one half of the proposal. I wanted to hear then why they did not consider alternative consensus building measures rather than picking a side. There are grounds for filing an arbitration case against the decision, but I have better things to do, and I think there are better ways to affect the ultimate outcome. Trying to revert an entire move like that would be disruptive; so would filing a move request to get it undone. There is clearly no consensus either way, so the best option would have been to seek some sort of middle ground.--Jiang (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the way things were before was neutral and the 'wikipedia way', now it seems communist pressure has succeeded in swaying some admins to their cause. 67.174.85.140 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The way before was the "wikipedia way" and yet it didn't follow our article titling policy (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POVTITLE etc) which require us to follow our sources. Something here doesn't make any sense at all.

The old way was forcing us to follow some faux equality between the claims of the PRC and ROC of the term China which simply doesn't exist and isn't followed by the vast majority of our sources. That isn't neutral.

When judging consensus on wikipedia if one sides arguments are backed up by policy and the other sides arguments are not backed up by policy then you side with the side that has bought up legitimate policy based arguments - even if that side is in reasonably significant minority (say 40-60 or even more) in a discussion. Claiming that going against your position is an "NPOV violation" isn't really a particularly good argument - and one that is regularly overused.

With regards to "middle ground" this is a middle ground position as there's a link to the Republic of China/Taiwan article at the top of the article - there is no policy based reason (as John Blackbourne pointed out) for this to exist - it is there simply as a good compromise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, Jiang. All merges should be undone, pending merge request discussions. The move itself wasn't appropriately passed, too, as a matter of procedure, and should be undone. 116.48.87.86 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like PRC is the sole legitimate representative of all China including Taiwan island. Taiwan is a hopeless cause.108.7.2.108 (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

please remove the communist “wumaodang 五毛黨” astroturfers 67.174.85.140 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please can you be civil and avoid making person attacks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First words of introduction

The big move was undertaken because supporters said many uninformed readers refer to the PRC when they say China, so to facilitate their finding what they want, "China" now takes them to the People's Republic of China. Hence the article name now says China. The move was not undertaken, however, to suggest that China can only mean the People's Republic of China. There is nuance in China = PRC.

• China = PRC. Most of the time? Maybe.
• China = PRC. Always? No.

In order to respect that nuance and make the move somewhat tenable, the lede should begin with The People's Republic of China, commonly known simply as "China", is . . . Rather than "China, officially known as the People's Republic of China." The latter gives the misimpression that China can only mean the PRC (that the PRC is the official name of China). The former says the PRC is commonly known as China without ruling out other possibilities for China. Having brought the uninformed readers to the right page, I think we should inform them of the nuances rather than to perpetuate their misperception.

ContinentalAve (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A note at the top of the article clearly says: This article is about the modern state in East Asia. For other uses, see China (disambiguation). Historical regimes called "China" and the ROC are discussed in this article anyway. "China" is a much more common (and no less incorrect) name for this state than "People's Republic of China", and it is the title of this article, so "China" should be first. Quigley (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's worded the way it is because this article is about "China" the country which is today officially known as the "People's Republic of China". There may be other China's, which is why users are directed to China (disambiguation) before anything else in the article, but this article is not about those "Chinas". It is not implied that the term "China" can't refer to other things. The first sentence with "China" first is nothing more than the application of a consistent WP convention, which is described at WP:LEDE. As you may have noticed the article's scope has been broadened slightly since the move to beyond the confines of the strictest notions of the "People's Republic of China". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 21:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

But there is another modern state in East Asia called China, that is not in the article's fact box. The dangling third-line statement, Not to be confused with the Republic of China, commonly called "Taiwan". just compounds the confusion. Is the Republic of China, commonly called Taiwan, (a) not a modern state or (b) not in East Asia? You need to revise the first clarification statement to say something like:

• This article is about the modern state in East Asia, which is widely recognized to be the sole legitimate modern state of China and which claims in whole, the Republic of China on Taiwan. For other uses, see China (disambiguation).

Even then, in my opinion, the article should still start with the official name of the PRC. The article title merely is designed to help users locate the article. The first words they read should start to clarify for them, the precise thing that they have found. The thing that they have found rules mainland China, claims to rule all of China, is widely recognized to be the sole ruler of China, but does not rule all of China. Hence China does not always mean PRC. But PRC always means China.

Also on the precision point, the Bill Clinton article is entitled Bill Clinton but begins with William Jefferson Clinton, his official name. In that instance the two are exactly identical and the editors went with the greater precision in the lede. ContinentalAve (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of hatnotes is to help with disambiguation. There are no other "modern states" which are regularly referred to as "China", so as far as I can tell, the first hatnote uniquely identifies the topic.. I don't see the need to expand the hatnote further, as you have suggested.

As for the first sentence, biographies have their own conventions, and aren't particularly relevant; a better analogy is Germany, whose first sentence is "Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany..". Mlm42 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ContinentalAve, and would like to note that articles with title X don't have to begin with "X..." and in fact are often opened by "Full name, commonly [also] known as X...".

Mlm42, you only listed one parallel. Our article on the UK begins with its full name (UK of GB and N Ireland), which is far more rarely used than either "PRC", "the PRC" or "the People's Republic". I feel that is not necessary, because "the UK" and its full name are wholly equivalent terms, whereas "China" and the PRC are not—Do admit at least this fact.

Quigley, I daresay that the bold contrast between the DAB header and the first line can be confusing to some readers. The former very clearly implies that "China" is not simply the PRC, whereas the latter is quite delimiting.  The Tartanator  18:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The DAB header and the first line actually complement each other. The header points out that this article is about the modern state in East Asia. Therefore, the first sentence of this article will talk about only this use of "China", not all the uses of "China" as listed in China (disambiguation). This is the only practical way to start the article, because otherwise this page would become a disambiguation page, with "China could mean a state in East Asia, or ceramics, or a song by Red Rockers..." Quigley (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, this isn't just the article about the PRC anymore. It's also the article about country China in a historical sense. I think there was a pretty clear consensus in the move discussion that when this move went through, the scope of this article had to be expanded to cover the subject "China" throughout all of its history. Therefore it gets the article off on completely the wrong foot to indicate that this is mainly an article about the People's Republic of China.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"...will talk about only this use of 'China'": then the first bold term ought to be the true name of this state.

I think the content should speak for itself. In no sensible way can I imagine that the first sentence alone determines the scope of an article. However, since it is part of text, it is equating the two terms China and PRC in text which has certainly not been agreed to.  The Tartanator  11:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"But there is another modern state in East Asia called China" - The other state is only rarely called that and then only to make a political point, not because people really mean that it is China. Since we're comparing other articles - consider Grass which begins with "Grasses, or more technically graminoids". It doesn't start with "Graminoids, commonly known as grasses". According to your logic it should, because "Grass" is also used for hemp, and hemp is not a graminoid, so not all grasses are graminoids. Readin (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming Conventions being revised

Many of the discussions on this page seem related to usage of the terms "China", "People's Republic of China", "Taiwan", "Republic of China", etc. as well as the naming of China-related articles. There is currently an ongoing discussion about revising the relevant naming conventions. Some of you may be interested to see what's been done so far and contribute to the process at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Using the name "China" instead of the "People's Republic of China". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

does it hit anyone that revise the primary article title page as "China" seem more eerily 'normal'... LOL I'm like... this should have been done a long time ago, I feel those people who make a big deal about it are POV pushers because so long as ROC is mentioned as a claimant to the title, then it's hardly POV, but reflective of practical common usage of China...Phead128 (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote regarding Taiwan

I made an edit to the hatnote about ROC, mentioning that ROC means the country commonly known as Taiwan. The hatnote was then removed entirely by User:JohnBlackburne, with edit summary: "as per WP:RELATED, hatnotes are for topics with ambiguous names, not for related topics". Per BRD, I'm here on the talk page.

I would contend that "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" are certainly ambiguous names to anyone unaware that two countries have the phrase "Republic of China" in their name. If someone reads of "Republic of China" and doesn't know what it is, they're likely to type in "China" to find out.

Besides this issue with the names, I have to make a point as one of the triumvirate who made the decision to move the PRC article to China. It was a major factor for me that there would be very clear disambiguation regarding ROC at the very top of the China article, and I made my commitment to be here, helping ensure that would happen. If I thought that ROC would be sidelined or minimized in any way - if I thought that there would fail to be a clear link to ROC/Taiwan before the lede of this article - then I never would have concurred with the move. To me, this is a vital point.

There is a country issuing passports that say "Republic of China" on the front. People will look for that country here, and they should be able to find it very, very quickly and easily.

I request that the ROC/Taiwan hatnote be restored as essential to the compromise that moved this article to its present location. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The ROC is already discussed in the lead, pretty quickly (second paragraph). I don't think that anyone with a ROC passport would have trouble distinguishing between the two articles. Anyone searching for the Republic of China will search for "Republic of China", and if they arrive here by some mistake, they will see that the first sentence is about the "People's Republic of China", and that the flag and territory in the infobox is not what they expected. Again, the short and common name for ROC is "Taiwan", not "China", and anyone who knows the most basic facts about the ROC beyond its name (and even those who just know the name) will recognize that they are at the wrong place in the lead, which mentions "Republic of China" by contrast quickly and explicitly. Quigley (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Your claim "Anyone searching for the Republic of China will search for 'Republic of China'" is not at all clear to me. Suppose you're never heard of ROC, but you know that the "Republic of France" is commonly called "France". Why would you not assume that a nation called "Republic of China" is commonly called "China"? Obviously, someone whose passport is Taiwanese won't be confused; I'm talking about someone who might see that passport without being aware that two countries are called "Republic of China", one with the word "People's" in the front.

Are you arguing against a hatnote for Taiwan? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind a hatnote for Taiwan, although I think the top of the article would look cluttered with three hatnotes, {{contains Chinese text}}, the multiple names for China, and so on. I was disturbed that you were tying this issue to the page's title, and I want to be sure that there's sound independent reasoning for the hatnote. Personally, I can't imagine many scenarios where someone would encounter the "Republic of China" without gaining some information that allows them to distinguish the topic. "China" is unambiguous in common speech, so anywhere the ROC is presented to outsiders, there is usually some clarification. Quigley (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue of clutter at the top of the page is important and worth considering. I will look very carefully at this before making any further edits; you can be sure of that. Whether I will make further edits or not is not certain.

I'm bothered by the relation of this issue to the page title, and I agree with your sentiment that there should be sound independent reasoning for the hatnote. I do, however, feel kind of blindsided, as if the goalposts have been moved after the fact. My feelings are not what we base decisions on though, so I'm being very careful here. I appreciate your comments, and everyone's. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a note to the section above where we originally discussed this, but in reply to the particular points mentioned above: there are many topics which readers might be looking for when they come here, because the names are similar so maybe ambiguous. Not only Republic of China but also Chinese culture, Mainland China, Greater China, etc. If there were only one such then it would make sense to link to it directly, but as there are many there's a link to the DAB page instead. Otherwise why not also add one or more of the others? There's no need to help users used to finding the ROC at China as it's never been there. There was perhaps a need for such a link to Chinese civilization but that article has now been merged with others, including this.The ROC is an important topic, which is why is is mentioned in the first few lines of the lead; it has hardly been sidelined. But there seems no good reason to have it also as a hatnote, especially as the article already has more hatnotes than most.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

John, thanks for commenting. You say, "There's no need to help users used to finding the ROC at China as it's never been there." Actually, until last week, it quite explicitly was there! If I say "Republic of China" to most Americans, they'll think I mean China. As long as "Republic of China" is used in formal settings as a name for Taiwan, this will be an issue.

I'll review the lede, but I still think a hatnote is preferable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant up until a week ago anyone typing China into the search box would find the article moved to Chinese civilization. Yes, that article had a hatnote linking to both the PRC and ROC but that was because it was an article without a clear reason to exist: with both the PRC and ROC mentioned in the hatnote, highlighted in the lede and illustrated using maps it was like an extended DAB page together with bits of History of China and other articles; it has now been merged with other articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

After all the debates, the current trend is that people don't refer to ROC as China anymore. Wikipedia has been bad to "educate it". Going forward we need to refer ROC independently as Taiwan. We'll still focus on the old ROC on mainland as a pre-1949 entity. But according to all the people who participated in debates, it is not fair to deny mainlanders full China status. After all the UN gave it to them. Benjwong (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well... I'm feeling pretty burned by this. I felt like I supported the move from PRC to China with a certain understanding, and now I feel a bit betrayed. I know that Wikipedia is not based on personal deals, nor on my feelings, but this bothers me nonetheless.

Lots of editors agreed with the idea of an expandable, detailed hatnote regarding ROC, complete with a map or a timeline. That's when they were trying to get something they wanted. Now they've got it; where is that willingness? Benjwong, "According to all the people who participated in debates"? You're using a different definition of "all" than the one I know about.

This is troubling to me, and causes me to doubt the whole process that got us here.

The idea that I'm trying to "deny mainlanders full China status" by supporting a hatnote that says "not to be confused with the Republic of China, commonly called Taiwan", is a stretch that beggars my comprehension. "Not to be confused with" means "that's not what we're talking about here." -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Benjwong is being sarcastic and caricaturing what he thinks the move supporters' feelings are. He was rebuked for doing the same thing during the move discussion, where he actually opposed the move. I sympathize with you for making a hard move, and I'm willing to work with you on whatever you think is necessary to improve this article. Moving forward, however, we should have a higher standard of conduct, especially with regard to transparency, because that was severely lacking under the former "China" article structure regime. Quigley (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should put it back in, at least until we get this resolved here. There's some merit to the argument that someone wanting the Republic of China may search China. Hey, it's better than whatever reasoning there is for having a disambiguation to Northern Ireland from Ireland. In regards to there being multiple other uses of China, yes there are, but if that is no reason we can't have one or two explicitly mentioned here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you do put it back in, please merge that hatnote with one or the other of the existing hatnotes so that it takes up less space. Quigley (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The names of PRC and ROC are indeed quite similar. It's not unreasonable to have the hatnote on ROC(Taiwan). STSC (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to use this combined format:

{{Two other uses|USE1|USE2|PAGE2}} → Template:Two other uses

STSC (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I too was under the impression that a hatnote for ROC was part of the compromise discussed during the move requests, though I didn't cast a vote in them at the time. Considering People's Republic of China redirects here, I don't see why a hatnote helping people who were actually after the Republic of China would be an unreasonable thing. I don't find the hatnotes intrusive or cluttered, and STSC's 'two other uses' note looks quite appropriate for this situation. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There should be a hatnote. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling the "Republic of China" simply "China" is extremely rare - almost non-existent in modern usage - it would not be expected for people to look for the ROC under the name "China". Much more common would be fore someone to look for expensive dinnerware or certain ceramics under the name "China". The ROC is handled by the disambiguation page. How does it make sense to make the extremely rare usage a separate call-out while having the common everyday usages hidden on the diambiguation page? Readin (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the above and then went back and re-read more carefully. If part of the understanding for making the move was that the ROC be included as hatnote, as GTBacchus says, then we should have the hatnote. However the idea of "an expandable, detailed hatnote regarding ROC, complete with a map or a timeline" is overkill. If someone has an ROC passport and looks up "China" and sees the hatnote that mentions the ROC, they will be able to distinguish the current article from the linked article without needing to study a map and timeline. Readin (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I did vote and a hatnote was not part of the move proposal. It was mentioned in the discussion but a few things were suggested including an expandable hatnote (I asked above for any examples of this as I've not seen it anywhere on WP), hatnotes like Egypt, Germany, Italy, India which are all much more compact and that it should be discussed after the move, which we're doing.

Whether or not the ROC link is included there is no need for them to take three lines though. I've consolidated them so the same links appear and the common name for the ROC "Taiwan" is still there, but eliminating redundancy ("other uses" appearing twice, "People's Republic of China" appearing even though it appears in the first sentence and infobox).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Those other countries' hatnotes aren't really any more compact, they just have fewer things to disambiguate (if we're counting the ROC). --Cybercobra (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My point was that was there was no discussion of this in move discussion, just a number of proposals. The one though that linked to those other articles was most instructive as it linked to them and showed what's common, and it was what I was aiming for when removing the ROC link. Even with that link in though the hatnote should be as compact as possible. The relevant policy is at WP:DLINKS – "Consolidate multiple disambiguation links into as few dablink hatnotes as possible." – but it's just common sense to avoid redundancy which just means there's more to read so it's harder to find the link you want.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just about this title, People's Republic of China was redirected and Republic of China is similar enough to warrant a hatnote. I could live without it, but I understand those that want it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It's similar, but if anything, leaving off the "People's" by mistake seems more likely, and indeed the ROC article has a hatnote to that effect. An ROC-seeker ending up here would have to have arbitrarily added "People's" to their search, which seems strange & unlikely, or have assumed ROC = China, which people seem to also consider unlikely, but in any event, we link to China (disambiguation) [which lists the ROC] and we also explain the history and link to the ROC in the lede. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think if there were a country in Africa whose official name was, coincidentally, "Republic of Canada", then we would have a hatnote for it at "Canada". Similarly, we should have a hatnote for "Republic of China" at "China". I also think Benjwong's comment, which is appears to me sarcastic and inflammatory, is not helpful. Mlm42 (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For the vast majority of people, Republic of China = China (even without People's) and Republic of Taiwan (which doesn't even exist) = Taiwan. The Republic of term is just a generic pre-fix and doesn't signify anything significant. The distinction between mainland China and Taiwan are more important... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to convince people that ROC has been around for 100 years and never left. But even in the eyes of people knowledgable about the topic, modern context Taiwan is really the one that exist. Your comment is likely too late. I am open to merging Republic of China -> "Taiwan" or "Taiwan (ROC)". It doesn't make sense to get rid of one political article (PRC), and keep the other one (ROC) around when we already have a Republic of China (1912-1949). We have the same issue with the timeline articles like 2011 in Taiwan and 2011 in the Republic of China. Benjwong (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think merging Republic of China -> "Taiwan" is a good idea. The History of Republic of China article will be sufficient to deal with the historical fact of the ROC existing for 34 years prior to taking over Taiwan. It needs to be discussed at Talk:Taiwan and Talk:Republic of China. Readin (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There are still 23 countries that recognize the ROC as China; also, someone reading Second World War history may want to know about the China during that period. These readers would just search for "China", so the hatnote should really include a reference to the ROC as in the "Two other uses" format. STSC (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only am I uncertain about whether to add the hatnote. But in the timeline of Chinese history#PRC.2FROC section, there has been no event that suggest we need to get rid of the blue side. So there is inconsistencies everywhere. Benjwong (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the ROC is another China, it's listed on China (disambiguation), which we link to. Seems sufficient, IMO, considering that we also cover the relevant history in the lede. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point: some readers may use the keyword "China" to search for "Republic of China". There's no need to be so wordy in the hatnote, just KISS and simply say "for the Republic of China". STSC (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss your point. If they meant another China, then that's exactly what China (disambiguation) is for.

At the least, some less redundant description for the ROC can be used if a hatnote is necessary. Phrasing it as a tautology just sounds stupid: "For the ROC, see ROC." "No freakin' duh!" --Cybercobra (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the way it is. Maybe "commonly known as Taiwan" can be added (it was there before). STSC (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Relatedly, given that this article is apparently broadening to include pre-PRC China, "the state established in 1949" is thus in hindsight not the best description for this article; however, the prior description ("the modern state in East Asia") does not seem to sufficiently distinguish from the ROC. Any suggestions for a better summary? --Cybercobra (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"...the country on the Asian mainland. For the state currently governing Taiwan, see..."? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"The state currently governing Taiwan" sounds like Taiwan is a state (with a Taiwanese Governor?) within the "United States of China". STSC (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The key thing about using "Taiwan" is it's the common name of the ROC. For most English speakers the state is Taiwan, and the fact that the ROC and Taiwan the island are not the same is something they are blissfully unaware of. So all that's needed is "For the state known as Taiwan..." or similar wording.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

@STSC: The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. So is the PRC. It's not the same meaning as a US state. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I certainly know the difference. STSC (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it to use country for both. That is at least clear to our readers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But the ROC isn't a country, it is a sovereign state. China is a country. I wrote a long TL;DR about it over here. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Country is the common term that will be understood and is generally used to mean the same thing, I think we could use sovereign state instead if that's a good compromise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess using "sovereign state" is fine too. I don't think there will be much objections to that either. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I added the word "sovereign". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But the reason for using 'Taiwan' is not that it's the name of the island but it's the common name for the ROC. It is much clearer worded "the state called Taiwan", "the state known as Taiwan" or some variation on that: readers now looking for that country will see the word "Taiwan" but wonder where the link for it is, if they are ignorant (as many are) that it's formally called the Republic of China.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it so it's clear that the Taiwan is another name for the ROC, for the reasons above.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox: "Official language"

I think that the current state of the article infobox may not effectively reflect the situation. The issue is, unlike English, Chinese distingishes spoken language (语) from written language (文), and realistically speaking, even in practice the two are not the same. Many official PRC sources note that the official language of China is "Chinese", though for our purposes of creating an in-depth encyclopedia this may not be precise or accurate enough. However, realistically speaking the official spoken language of China is Standard Chinese (i.e. the regulated dialect of Mandarin Chinese based on the Beijing dialect), and the official written language is Vernacular Chinese.

Why might this be such an issue, might you ask? Well, Vernacular Chinese is used as a lingua franca regardless of spoken dialect. In Hong Kong, many people do not speak any variety of Mandarin, and some even have zero knowledge of Mandarin, however they formally write in Vernacular Chinese, which has vocabulary and grammar completely different from spoken Cantonese (see List of diglossic regions#Chinese). Native speakers of Standard Cantonese are also "native writers" of Vernacular Chinese (if that makes sense), and in formal and semi-formal situations Vernacular Chinese is the only accepted form of written communication in Hong Kong (Written Cantonese is used informally, such as SMS, instant messaging, blogging, songs, etc), and this applies to other dialects as well, such as Shanghainese and Taiwanese Hokkien. If a kid from Hong Kong arrived home, he would say to his mother "今日嘅晚飯我已經食咗喇" (Gam1yat6 ge3 maan5faan6 ngo5 ji3ging1 sik6zo2 la3; "I've already eaten today's dinner") via his mouth, but if she was absent and he had to handwrite a note, he would write "今天的晚飯我已經吃過了". Vernacular Chinese is based on the grammar of Modern Standard Mandarin (as opposed to Classical Chinese being based on Old Chinese grammar from the Qin Dynasty), however you do not need knowledge of how to speak Mandarin to write Vernacular Chinese.

Many people do not speak Standard Mandarin as their first language. Some might not even speak Standard Mandarin at all; one such example is my grandmother on my mother's side, who speaks a Shandong dialect of Mandarin that is partially incomprehensible to me, and another example is my grandmother on my father's side, who speaks a Hunan dialect of Mandarin that sounds nothing like Standard Mandarin (she pronounces 飞机 feiji like 灰鸡 huiji, 肉 rou like 弱 ruo, and 老奶奶 laonainai as loh-leh-leh). Yet, these people can communicate fine with others via writing.

Currently the infobox reads "Official language(s): Mandarin (or Putonghua)". The problem is, you cannot write in Putonghua; you write in Vernacular Chinese. Unlike the United States, United Kingdom, Germany or France, where we could just write "Official language: English/French/German" in the infobox, since English is not distinguished between written and spoken forms, we cannot do the same here.

TL;DR, the current state of the infobox is bad, what should we do? I personally think we should write that the official spoken language is "Mandarin (Putonghua)" and the official written language is Vernacular Chinese. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国 Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó
Official languages	Mandarin
Recognised regional languages	Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, Zhuang, and various others
Official writing form	Vernacular Chinese
Official script	Simplified Chinese
ISO 3166 code	CN

That sounds right to me, although no doubt I'm less knowledgable than you are on this. I would actually remove the bracketed putonghua, as that's not going to clarify anything to english speakers at all. On a side note, would it be better to clarify Mandarin as "Standard Mandarin" or something similar? Anyway, I've created a mockup here, leaving Mandarin as the official language, but naming Vernacular Chinese as the writing form. The new codable language fields makes this possible. However, I can't get rid of the line without removing the regional languages field, which I'm not sure would gain consensus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally like how a few linguists call it "Modern Standard Mandarin" (MSM), as I've read in a few papers. However, the article at Standard Chinese used to be located at Standard Mandarin, but it was moved following a Requested Move, since it was argued that Standard Chinese was the WP:COMMONNAME (similarly, Taiwanese Minnan was moved to Taiwanese Hokkien, and something happened to Yue Chinese as well, I forgot). I was originally thinking along the lines of "Official language(s): Spoken language: Mandarin (Putonghua)<br>Written language: Vernacular Chinese" or something, but because we have to adhere to the template format (which isn't very flexible), that might not be possible. as for "(Putonghua)", I guess that's to differentiate between "regulated" Mandarin (i.e. Standard Chinese) and the 20 other regional variants of Mandarin (Northeastern Mandarin, Tianjin dialect, etc) since "Putonghua" essentially means "common language". I can guess why those who originally modified the infobox didn't have a direct unpiped link to Standard Chinese, probably because they thought that most people would have no idea what that means, and "Mandarin" would be a more laymen-friendly, easier-to-understand way to put it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

China
Recognised regional languages	Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, Zhuang, and various others
Official spoken language	Mandarin
Official written language	Simple Vernacular Chinese

Putonghua means common language in Chinese (well, in Putonghua), but when used in English it is used as the Chinese translation of Mandarin, and thus doesn't really give any extra meaning to the usage. What could be done is combining the script and vernacular sections (after all they go together) for something like "Official written language = Simple Vernacular Chinese" meaning the other template can be converted into "Official spoken language = Mandarin". The coding somehow caused regional languages not to be shown though, which is odd. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox around a bit. I didn't want to mess around with the template params too much, so I kept it simple and left the official language as is, and created a new subtype "official written language". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the discussion. Using "dialects" to describe ways of speaking that are mutually intelligible and "languages" for ways of speaking that are not mutually intelligible, does China have an official language or an official dialect? To make parallel with English and America - is the Chinese law similar to specifying English as America's language, or would it be more like specifying the American midwestern (as opposed to southern, New York, Boston, cockney, Australian, etc.) dialect? Readin (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, linguists classify Mandarin, Yue, Min Nan, et cetera as separate languages, however the Chinese government classifies them all as "dialects of Chinese". This may be for political reasons, since after all, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy". What is a "language", and what is a "dialect"? On the Yue Chinese and similar articles we essentially explain them as de facto languages, since they are pretty much non-intelligible between one another; however on the China article we would list it within the infobox as the government officially classifies it. The PRC does not recognise Yue, Min and the others as languages. Officially, there is only one "Chinese language", and Modern Standard Mandarin is the officially sanctioned and regulated version of it; all others are pretty much considered unofficial/regional/vulgar, so to speak.

The parallel with English isn't really accurate; American English, British English, Australian English and other varieties are mutually intelligible; as a native Australian English speaker, I can turn on BBC or CNN and understand their varieties of English perfectly fine. However this is not the case for Chinese. "I've already eaten today's dinner" would be "Jīntiān de wǎnfàn wǒ yǐjīng chīguò le" in Standard Mandarin, "Gam1yat6 ge3 maan5faan6 ngo5 ji3ging1 sik6zo2 la3" in Standard Cantonese, and "Kin-á-ji̍t ê àm-pn̄g góa í-king chia̍h-kuè ah" in Taiwanese Hokkien - hearing these by ear alone, and a Mandarin speaker would be completely unable to understand the other two. One might say that they are not dialects but rather languages, but as with many things such an interpretation is disputed. A similar case would be the Ryukyuan languages - officially the Japanese government considers them a "dialect" of Japanese, even though most Japanese wouldn't be able to understand a single word of Okinawan.

Back to the main topic, despite that a person like me, who speaks the Beijing dialect of Mandarin, would be unable to verbally communicate with someone who speaks, say, Gan Chinese, this would not be the case with written Chinese, as Vernacular Chinese is used regardless of spoken dialect. This is why I was initially opposed to equating "Mandarin" with the sole official language, as Vernacular Chinese pretty much acts as a de facto official written language, separate from the spoken varieties of Chinese. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I might have to clarify a few things, since I assume some people might get confused over the whole linguistics issue. (TL;DR full speed ahead.) The current linguistic situation in China is the result of decades of government policy, which started from the ROC era, and was employed in full force during PRC rule. Here I am referring to a) the promotion of Mandarin as the national (spoken) language, and b) the development of the modern vernacular writing system.

It was decided from the Kuomintang era of the ROC that Mandarin was to be promoted as "national language" (國語), since it was thought that linguistic disunity was a major obstacle to nation-building (建國), however due to Japanese invasions here, communist uprisings there, and Soviet and Tibetan raids everywhere else, they didn't really have the time to be worried about what language people should be speaking. Following the rise of the PRC, Standard Mandarin was promoted as the standard spoken language by the government; something similar occured on Taiwan by the KMT there, and in Singapore following Lee Kwan Yew's linguistic policies.

Whilst spoken varieties continue to exist, Chinese is generally written in only one way, on the formal level at least. In Taiwan, many people speak Taiwanese Hokkien, but outside of Facebook, SMS, film subtitles and music video karaoke, who uses Written Hokkien? Essentially no one; official communication is done entirely in Vernacular Chinese. There are many in Taiwan who don't speak a word of Mandarin (such as the elderly), yet they are still able to write in Vernacular Chinese. The same applies to people in Hong Kong who only speak Cantonese, people from Singapore and Malaysia who speak Straits Hokkien, and the people from mainland China who speak some vague regional dialect of Mandarin. Vernacular Chinese was developed and endorsed by intellectuals and the ROC government following the May Fourth Movement to promote literacy, since Classical Chinese is a clusterfuck of a writing form to learn especially for the peasant class. Whilst everyone was writing the same way, they were still speaking in different tongues; in the early 1960s, the PRC government decided that, to promote linguistic unity (and to continue where the Kuomintang left off), they would promote Mandarin based on the Beijing dialect as official, and discourage the use of other dialects; hence why today people in mainland China regard the use of dialects as something "dirty" or "uneducated". The policies regarding spoken and written language are separate from one another and had different goals. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Just be bold and change it. I don't see how this is contentious to anyone with knowledge of Chinese language(s). LK (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already done what I wanted to do. I thought I needed to justify it here, because these are the kinds of silly things that always seem to start loleditwars, from experiences I've seen in the past. Anything linguistics-related is always a nationalism-hotbed. Now, if anyone wants to contest what I've done, I'll just point them to the massive TL;DR on the talk page. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

China space superpower

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: China has successfully launched an experimental module Tiangong 1 (Heavenly Palace) as the first step in the Asian giant to build a space station and put it alongside the United States and Russia. Heavenly Palace was launched from the Gobi desert, in space control center in Beijing attended by Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao. China space superpower. 93.137.41.15 (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Chinese nationalist, but China won't become a superpower until at least 2030, and I'm personally banking on 2050, and if the latest, 2075-85... at least by 2200. China isn't close to Superpower level yet, not really close at all... esp. not yet in space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

the way they're going now by 2030 China will be destroyed

WP:NOTFORUM. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems with China now = PRC

There are many articles that refer to "China" or "all China" in the context of the combined areas of mainland and Taiwan, for example cross-Strait relations. So then where should "China" in that text link to now? Linking to the new China certainly won't work since it no longer includes ROC/Taiwan. Should it link to Republic of China (1912-1949) or One-China?

"All China" is going to be an awkward term regardless of how it's used or to what it links. I'd suggest you being bold and simply editing the instances you mentioned into something more readable and less problematic, rather than the complicated linking job that would be required otherwise. For example, the phrase "all China" currently exists in that article in a sentence about NATO recognition - just rewrite it to say something like "...the ROC government was recognized as the legitimate Chinese government until 1971...", maybe using quotation marks on "legitimate". That wouldn't need a wikilink.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think legitimate needs quotes, the UN did recognise the ROC as China until 1971. With regards to history I would expect it to be handled in a similar way to other historical states - Leonardo da Vinci's nationality is given as 'Italian' which links to Italy - even though the modern Italian state didn't exist until the 19th century. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be delinked. Perhaps the phrase "mainland China and Taiwan" is needed when you need to pinpoint the geographical scope.--Jiang (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Please change "The first unified Chinese state was established by Qin Shi Huang of the Qin state in 221 BC." to "Qin Shi Huang of the Qin State reunified China as the first imperial dynasty in 221 BC".

Because Qin is not the first dynasty that ever united China, Xia\Shang\Zhou had united China before Qin, although not under the same imperial system viewed by modern concept. On the other hand, it seems wrong if we say China had been being under disunited situation, beacuse The founder of Xian/Shang/Zhou conquered the whole China at the time and assigned their supporters/family memebers as the heads of reginoal states (like the state governor, though they had more independent authority than those under imperial system later on),and the founders' heirs were the unique kings(or emporers) over other dukes for many generations (until the regional/State dukes became more powerful later when entering the Sring and Autum period).

Welcome any kind of different opinions to my email (Redacted), thank you!

Pumpkin414 (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tajikistan land handover

On 20 september 2011 Tajikistan handover 1158km² of land to China in a low key ceremony to settle an old border dispute. This was approved by the Tajikistan parliament on 12 january 2011.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20111004000073&cid=1101

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/china-expands-by-1158-sq-km-from-tajikistan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.172.168 (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Civilisation

It's a shame to throw away a perfectly good article on the Chinese Civilisation (the article that formerly occupied the title "China") may I suggest we put that article under "Chinese Civilisation" and put the current "Chinese Civilisation" page under "Chinese Civilisation (disambiguation)"?Staygyro (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well a lot of the content in that answer really belonged elsewhere - which is why it disappeared so quickly - so if you want to have an article at "Chinese civilisation" I suggest you create a userspace draft and then we can consider it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Rape of Nanking, British China and Genghis Khan

Sock disruption again

Why is there no mention of the Japanese colonizing almost the whole of the east coast of China and forcing Chinese women into prostitution? Why is there no mention of "British China". Hong Kong and Kowloon were under the British until the 90s! And also, why isn't there even a mention of Genghis Khan in the introduction! Genghis Khan occupied the whole of China ending China's continuity as a civilization. It is astonishing how selective the article on China is, owing to the POV pushing by Chinese nationalists. (pauses typing due to uncontrollable laughter at the term "Chinese nationalist"). Please add the following sentence in the introduction. "To this day, China is the only civilization to be colonized by both Asian and European imperial powers. Japan and The United Kingdom colonized China in the 1900s." (please add specific date). We are a group of historians at a well known university and we were shocked at the inaccuracies in the articles regarding China and India on wikipedia. As with many universities around the world, we inevitably end up comparing the 2 fastest growing economies on the planet today and the level of misinformation is astounding. We will definitely take up this issue at the Wikimedia conference if it takes place in our city. If required, we are willing to take legal action as well. Such utterly nonsensical articles pushing the Chinese POV! It is disgusting! Can we please have the contact details of the founder of wikipedia- Jimmy Wales. Thank you! 122.167.117.124 (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC) See WP:LEGAL. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing. That's Realhistorybuff (talk · contribs) again causing disruption. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Duh...

This change was a no-brainer. PRC=China is the new norm, and has been since a while now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)