Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

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

continued from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/archive4#..of Taiwan .26rarr.3B ..of the Republic of China and #Solution

Solution

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

As the one who initiated the discussion, I support the moves. — Insta ntnood 17:35, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

This section has been here for 2 weeks from the time the first vote was cast. Should it be closed or be extended? — Insta ntnood 10:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

If the poll at this section is to be closed, shall we proceed to a case-by-case poll, like what had been done at template talk:Europe? And should it be done on a subpage (to avoid this page getting to huge)? — Insta ntnood 21:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I guess we should now proceed to case-by-case poll. — Insta ntnood 20:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have added a new page for case-by-case poll at /Taiwan vs. ROC. — Insta ntnood 12:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

What solution?

I was going to vote on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC for renaming because I was under the impression that the convention has been agreed upon, but it's hard for me to find evidence for that outcome. I'm sorry if I'm just confused by the sheer amount of text.

My main reasons for voting for renaming would be:

We should follow the naming convention as a matter of course. Actually, this should not require another poll.
Political agendas aside, I see this as similar to the use of "England" or "Great Britain" vs "UK".
I find more respectable editors among the proponents.
Some of the opponent's statements, such as "why the hell are you going around campaigning? You don't trust [...] people [...]" are off the mark. (Campaigning has been an integral part of any democracy since its invention.)

Sebastian 03:04, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion Sebastian. I myself is neither optimistic that this can be solved. Wikipedia is not as an ideal place as many might have thought. — Insta ntnood 07:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I share your sentiment about Wikipedia. For a volunteering activity there is a surprising amount of bullying and dishonesty going on. But in this particular case, i just meant that the link doesn't point to a clear statement about the result of the vote. Sebastian 08:08, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

It assesses whether an entry satisfies the naming conventions, and to be retitled accordingly. — Insta ntnood 08:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm still confused. I still don't know if the naming convention has been decided. Either way, it seems, if it's still open for discussion or already decided, I don't see why we're voting on the conversion. If open, then we should either wait till it's closed or present a complete case with the consequences. If decided, then i don't see why we should vote about implementing it. — Sebastian (留言) 19:18, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

..of China or ..of the PRC → ..of mainland China

Learnt from the lesson on Wikipedia:Requested moves, a consensus here is essential and a prerequisite.

Important note

This is not a debate on the naming conventions, but its application and enforcement. Please do not oppose the moves just because you oppose the naming conventions. If you do want to comment on the current naming conventions, please start a new section on this page.

Precedents

on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion: (#1 and #2)

existing articles: List of Chinese companies, Demographics of China, Cinema of China

Naming conventions

Relevant statements from the naming conventions: " Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, but are under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting Mainland China." ". (Obviously "mainland China" is the appropriate term to describe the situation which Hong Kong and Macao (and the territories under the ROC) are excluded.)

Also relevant: " Wikipedia reflects the neutral reality and considers the term "China" not to coincide with any particular sovereign state or government. In particular, the word "China" should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration of the People's Republic of China or with Mainland China. ".

Categories and articles involved

It is not necessary to support or oppose all of the moves below. In other words, you can object on the general direction, but support one or some of them, or vice versa.

Categories

Articles

(Note: This list should not be considered a full list. Some categories and articles might have not been identified.)

The moves do not apply to some articles and categories, such as the followings.

Categories

Articles

Basics

These articles or sections let you be more familiar with the issue.

One Country, Two Systems, History of Hong Kong, History of Macau, Sino-British Joint Declaration, Basic Law of Hong Kong, Politics of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, Hong Kong dollar, Pataca, Hong Kong International Airport#Anomalies, Economy of Hong Kong, Court of Final Appeal, Mainland China, Talk:Mainland China, Category talk:Cities in China, Category talk:Airports of the People's Republic of China, Category talk:Cities in China (more articles or sections would be added)

Important disclaimer: the list of articles and categories above have been compiled for some time, and the ongoing edit and revert wars staged recently by Huaiwei have made it necessary to bring the issue here earlier.

If there is no objection, the consensus here will serve as a precedance in future for articles sharing the common title problem. — Insta ntnood 22:59, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on "China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China"

Note: Here's a place for discussion. This is not a poll.

Object, yes, object! The term "mainland China" is absolutely meaningless semantic drivel. It should be removed from the naming conventions. "Mainland China" should be used rarely (or not at all! use a more specific term) to disambiguate from the greater "China". "China" in general refers to the anything chinese. It is also understood as a general term to refer to the PRC and it's possessions. English allows fluidity around a term and people understand meaning by context. There is not a need to rename articles from "China" to be more specific that it is only certain parts of PRC China. People understand, do not dumbify to uselessness because of some naming convention. If Tourism in China doesn't refer to Hong Kong or some other place, then just make a statement of that in the article, don't rename the article. There are multiple governments that use the term "China" but sorry, the PRC is the 800lb gorilla. Will your next crusade be to start renaming anything with "America" in the title to refer only to "The United States of America"? SchmuckyTheCat 23:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" is not just a casual or informal term. The phrase "the mainland of China" is used in laws in Hong Kong (search for "mainland of China" at http://www.legislation.gov.hk). The Mainland Affairs Commission (MAC) of the Executive Yuan of the ROC also uses the term "mainland China" (see Talk:Mainland China). And please bear in mind this is not a debate on the naming conventions, but its application. — Insta ntnood 00:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is 'talk:naming conventions' and if I want to say the naming conventions are bad, i will. I won't let the "Executive Yuan of the ROC" (the ROC being Taiwan) define the name used by an emerging superpower nation-state. It may be a useful term for subentities that are NOT part of "mainland China" to differentiate themselves but it is the wrong term to use for the main entity. HK and Taiwan don't get to define China. China does and the one word "China" is it. SchmuckyTheCat 01:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good. I am interested to know how you'd comment on the following materials produced by the PRC government.

Latest Satistics on SARS on Mainland China (15/04/2003) [1]
Education System in Mainland China [2]
Regulations of the State Council for Encouragement of Investment by Overseas Chinese and Compatriots from Hong Kong and Macao [3]
Reform gradualism and evolution of exchange rate regime in Mainland China (a speech delievered by the governor of the People's Bank of China) (doc format) [4]

If you want to comment on the naming conventions, please start a new section. — Insta ntnood 01:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the PRC is differentiating from the other regions it controls. SchmuckyTheCat 04:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right. In other words the term "mainland China" is not only used by Hong Kong or the ROC, but also the PRC itself. — Insta ntnood 15:07, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Object. Obviously an objection is in order, especially when there is actually a proclaimation that this result is going to form the basis for ALL the above changes! Each of those cases warrant discussions of their own.--Huaiwei 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not the case. — Insta ntnood 01:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

In reference to?--Huaiwei 05:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object For the reasons outlined above. How long will it take for Instantnood to recognise he is in a minority here, that many people have read his arguments, but disagree with them, and that WP is governed by consensus? jguk 19:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object "of mainland China" is ugly and cumbersome. If particular regions are included/excluded and confusion may otherwise occur, put it in the text. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 20:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I support consistency. If the Wikipedia community had a consensus on the naming convention of Mainland China, China, People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Republic of China, etc., and the opposers failed to change the status quo in the "Political NPOV section", we should make the article titles and Categories consistent with the policy. Yes, someone may say that they look ugly and that most Western media ignore those fine details, but the consensus was to be accurate and to educate the public. I still find the old consensus make sense for an encyclopedia. -- Felix Wan 02:06, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

there isn't a naming convention for "mainland china" other than as an acceptable term when the need to differentiate from the greater China is necessary. Most of the time, and most of these changes, that differentiation isn't necessary. Using "mainland China" as a primary term is actually against the convention. (added by SchmuckyTheCat at 06:45, Mar 12, 2005)

The term "Mainland China" has never been accepted as an agreeable term to refer to the country. Refer to below.--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even by doing so it is not used to referred to as a country, but a part (though a major part) of a country. It is a matter of presentation. It does not imply mainland China itself is a sovereign state. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

So long that the above categories are classifications by country, then you are indeed calling "Mainland China" a country. Refer to below.--Huaiwei 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quoted from your words at Talk:Mainland China " more because of presentation issues then fact. " when commenting on the list of countries by area. — Insta ntnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

And what is wrong with that quote? The PRC often refers to the ROC as "Taiwan", avoiding the term "ROC" because it refuses to recognise it. The ROC refers to the PRC as "Mainland China" because it also refuses to recognise the PRC. But does this than equate to "Mainland China" and "Taiwan" becoming acceptable names for countries, although it is very much more common for the later, and although some of us have been criticising that assumption?--Huaiwei 16:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then am I calling "mainland China" as a country, or is it just an issue of presentation? — Insta ntnood 16:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

You are presenting the term as a country. And I dispute that, if that is not obvious by now.--Huaiwei 16:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I support as well. And I don't think things would look ugly at all if they're changed. Why are people so afraid of the term "mainland China"? -- ran (talk) 02:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

My reason for disagreeing with the above is this. The term "Mainland China" itself may not be a major issue, but it is often a sub-category of categories filed by country. So, "Roads of China", for example, may come under a category "Roads by country". When we rename "Roads of China" as "Roads of Mainland China", we end up having "Mainland China" appearing as a country amongst other country entries. I do not find that acceptable. When the title reads as "XXX of China", I feel we have room to have "XX of HK", "XX of Macau" and "XX of Taiwan/ROC" appearing both as subcategories of "XX of China" as per our conventions set earlier, plus also appearing in the "XXX" by country category as well as a bonus. Personally, I prefer to see "XXX of China" split into "XX of the PRC" and "XX of ROC/Taiwan" and have "XX of Hong Kong" and "XX of Macau" as subcategories of "XX of the PRC". Isnt this the proper way that countries should be filed as?--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you argue in this way then strictly speaking the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan) are not two countries. They belong to the same country, and technically a country in war time that two powers controlling different parts of the country. In other words neither the PRC nor the ROC is qualified to be listed or categorised as country. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely because the two are in theory not countries, that we have some pages with "XXX in China" which contains information on both the PRC and the ROC. This has been well explained in this very convention, even if it was contested. If we apply that logic to pages, I dont see why it canot be applied to categories. What you are doing to the categories runs contrary to conventions. For example, why do you resist my restoration of "Category:Airports in China" to include all subcategories related to both airports in the PRC and the ROC, and instead tried to remove "Category:Airports of Hong Kong" and "Category:Airports of Macau" out of that category, plus revert my inclusion of "Category:Airports of Taiwan" within that category (although I also allowed it to appear seperately at the same time)?--Huaiwei 13:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to the current treatment at Demographics of China and List of Chinese companies. — Insta ntnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh....so you are telling me "Mainland China" gets listed as a country in those two instances? Thanks. Something needs to be done about them then! Meanwhile, did anyone not notice that Instantnood has been silently moving plenty of those pages to the "Mainland China" category in place of the PRC?--Huaiwei 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The real side of the fact is that the English word "country" is a relatively vague concept, as oppose to "sovereign state". Many lists or categories all across Wikipedia are not limited to cover only sovereign states. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to contest the notion of what "country" means, then you have to go beyond this small little exercise here. If you want consistency, and to accept that the term is vague, then may I ask if you allow the creation of "Category:Airports of Kurdistan" and "Category:Airports of Tibet" and list then independently, since they are also "countries" by certain definitions? And meanwhile, how would you treat any classification related to the United Kingdom, since it is composed of countries? Meanwhile, could you tell us just how often is the term "Mainland China" considered a "country" even if we were to consider the word "country" as contestable, which is true in actual fact?--Huaiwei 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you like it. But I am afraid everyone can tell. — Insta ntnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Answer those questions.--Huaiwei 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Except diplomatic relations and national defence, Hong Kong and Macao are on their own. Ministries of the CPG of the PRC have no jurisdiction over Hong Kong and Macao affairs. For instance if Hong Kong has to build an additional university it is not the business of the education ministry of the PRC. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

This point has been repeated over and over. Yes, we are more then aware that the two ~~SARS~~ SARs run their own economical and transportational affairs. But as has also been repeatedly retorted, we are talking about a classification along political lines here. Having a classification of XXX, even if it has nothing to do with politics, appearing in a classiciation by country is not a politically NPOV. Try creating "Category:Musicians of Tibet" and then listing it in "Category:Musicians by country" instead of "Category:Musicians of China", and then come tell me if that is a politically NPOV?--Huaiwei 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please tell why Tibet is a valid and applicable analogy here. — Insta ntnood 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

You insisted that so long that the topic in question is not political, it is ok to ignore political considerations in presentation. Fine. I chose Tibet because it is so damn obvious. You can ask yourself how it will be like if do it with Shanghai too for all I care, coz the same theory applies.--Huaiwei 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In other words you're implying the case of Tibet is comparable, and therefore Tibet is a valid and applicable analogy, am I right? — Insta ntnood 16:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Feel free to substitute with any other political entity you can think of. ;)--Huaiwei 16:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support. It's clear that the conventions have been defined beforehand and we should try to adhere to those standards. If people have problems with the convention itself, that should have been brought up beforehand. BTW, some of the articles you proposed to rename probably don't apply. For instance, the current text in Tourism in China talks about both mainland and Taiwan, so keeping it as "China" should be fine since China refers to the region as a whole. Transportation in China seems to talk a bit about Hong Kong too, so maybe it should be Transportation in the People's Republic of China instead of Transportation in Mainland China. Anyway, these are just nitpicks that can be ironed out beforehand, but I do support the general proposal of renaming some articles in order to adhere to the naming conventions. --Umofomia 06:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess the content of some of the articles might have to be slightly modified, for instance Transportation in China. — Insta ntnood 07:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

In the same way that you can modify the contents so that they suit the new categories, they can also be modified to suit the existing categories.--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

The conventions, however, did not state that "Mainland China" is an acceptable equivalant to refer to the PRC as a country. Do note, as I said before, that these categories are also classified under "XXX by country". I do not think there is a country called "Mainland China". The only reason Hong Kong and Macau sometimes appears under country listings is due to the 1 country 2 systems formula, which I am more then open to allow them appearing both as countries or as being classified under the PRC, or either one as the situation deems it neccesary.--Huaiwei 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In this proposal "mainland China" is not used as an equivalent to the PRC. The scope of the content of the articles or categories covers only the mainland China, and therefore they need a proper title. Having them subcategorised undermine their character as dependent territories (or special territories, as you may prefer) instead of ordinary subnational entities. — Insta ntnood 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

This assumption is only true, if you also then create new categories called "XXX of the People's Republic of China" and then make "XXX of Mainland China", "XXX of Hong Kong" and "XXX of Macau" as subcategories of it. The fact is that each of the above categories you are trying to rename are subcateries of "XXX by country" so you are, intentionally or otherwise, equating to insisting that the "People's Republic of China" has to be called "Mainland China" in country lists. I do not find that acceptable, unless you do what I suggested above. Trying to create international space for Hong Kong-related articles is perfectly alright as far as knowledge and this encyclopedia is concerned, but to therefore cause the international standing of another entity, and in this case, the holding entity of Hong Kong, to suffer by refering to it merely with a sub-geographical name when refering to the country is an extreme exercise we cannot take lightly.--Huaiwei 13:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments: I think User:Huaiwei did raise a valid point, which I had overlooked: the current convention is silent about whether we can list mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan among the other countries in non-political context. We may need to find some consensus on clarifying the convention before we decide on the move. Let's look at the problem using one example: The current Category:Airlines of Asia consists of subcategories Category:Airlines of China, Category:Airlines of Hong Kong and Category:Airlines of Taiwan and the article Air Macau. All other subcategories are airlines of sovereign states. The three subcategories do not have further subcategories. That appears wrong, but how to fix it?

Politically, although Hong Kong and Taiwan are not countries, listing them among other countries are allowed in the context of "airlines". For all practical reasons the three regions have independent administration of their airlines. There is no political dispute about that. On the other hand, listing Tibet among the list is not appropriate. However, it seems to be more appropriate to replace "China" with "mainland China" for two reasons:

That category actually excludes airlines from other regions of "China". "Mainland China" is the accurate description there according to the convention.
Listing "China" among "Hong Kong" and "Taiwan" seems to imply that the last two are not part of "China".

That was how I came to the same conclusion as User:Instantnood that most of the moves listed should be done according to the current convention.

If I understand the logic of User:Huaiwei correctly, he/she would suggest that we have only one Category:Airlines of China at that level, listed among other countries, and then have Category:Airlines of mainland China, Category:Airlines of Hong Kong and Category:Airlines of Taiwan listed as subcategories. Personally I find that acceptable too, but I am afraid other Wikipedians may not. It may also be difficult for someone unfamiliar with the politics of that region to find the last two categories if they are not listed among the Asian countries but only as a subcategory of China.

Let's discuss on how to resolve the issue using that example, and see if we can set a standard and state it clear as the convention. -- Felix Wan 02:11, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Felix, many of us DO disagree with the NPOV section of the naming convention but either nobody wants to have that discussion or when it occurs, it occurs within the context of proposals like this, where it doesn't actually affect the main article. I for one, have no problem with airlines of HK being a sub of Airlines of the PRC, or Airlines of China, and Taiwan being seperate altogether from either, maybe in Airlines of Asia, as it's own independent entity WHICH IT IS, and which the naming conventions ALSO say is an acceptable solution. SchmuckyTheCat 02:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that arrangement either, but I am sure someone will oppose it strongly. What I want is just a consensus on one convention and then apply it consistenly. By the way, there IS a discussion on the NPOV section on this page. If we can come up with any decision in this context, we should also change the main article accordingly. So feel free to discuss here or in that section. -- Felix Wan 04:05, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

I would like to remind the participants that claiming Taiwan being not a country is a clear POV and not neutral. The ROC government made it clear many times: ROC is an independent sovereign country. Although I also tend to disagree with that claim either. To be more precise, Taiwan is a territory under ROC occupation, my POV. (added by Mababa at 08:57, Mar 16, 2005)

Thanks Mababa. The most tend-to-NPOV treatment would be a description of the status quo, by saying Taiwan is a territory currently administered by the ROC (without addressing its legality). It is a POV and is not neutral to say Taiwan is currently a sovereign state on its own. — Insta ntnood 09:44, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Instantnood's response. For that very reason, that is why we have this long discussion about separating Taiwan from ROC. But again, though my POV supports this treatment, many people use the terms interchangably to refer the government. Though we do not adapt that POV and use it as truth, I believe that we should at least reflect that POV in the articles for the sake of reaching NPOV.Mababa 04:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A poll?

Shall we go on a poll? If yes, is now the right timing? — Insta ntnood 10:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood created his categories and started populating them without getting any concensus here.

Laws of mainland China has been put up for CfD. SchmuckyTheCat 23:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

May I add that he recently also created Category:Companies of mainland China, which I have also put up for review and deletion. Goodness knows how many more he has similarly done.--Huaiwei 03:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please start the poll if you would like to object the proposal. — Insta ntnood 08:57, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Important: Please see the Basics section above before casting a vote. — Insta ntnood 01:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

As the one who initiated the discussion, I support the moves. — Insta ntnood 20:17, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I oppose all moves that mention Mainland China, unless it's a move away from it. -Kbdank71 21:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object For the reasons outlined above. How long will it take for Instantnood to recognise he is in a minority here, that many people have read his arguments, but disagree with them, and that WP is governed by consensus? jguk 19:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object "of mainland China" is ugly and cumbersome. If particular regions are included/excluded and confusion may otherwise occur, put it in the text. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 20:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

~~Tentatively support moves from PRC or China to Mainland China. (I might want to look at the moves case-by-case but I support the idea in general.)~~ I'm beginning to like the term "Mainland China" more and more. For starters, it describes a very real political and economic entity. It is a natural category that arises when Chinese people conceive of Greater China. It is used extensively on Chinese Wikipedia. It is also wonderfully NPOV, and is used by people of every political opinion, because it separates out Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan without implying anything whatsoever about their status (note: you can't say the same thing about separating PRC and ROC.) Heck, Mainland China even fields its own Olympic team. Why is everyone so scared of this term?? -- ran (talk) 23:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

ran, you've pointed out things to me and we've agreed to move or rename articles, sometimes in entirely different ways than what was proposed (like the autonomous regions article). this mainland China business, while I respect your seeing it as a neutral term, is being extensively used to push POV, which I don't think you'd support. I think that's why you'd like to see it on a case-by-case basis. take a good look at how it's currently being abused before supporting it. SchmuckyTheCat 00:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at how it's being "abused", and I conclude that it is not. In what ways do you think it's being abused? Do you mean the categories business above? -- ran (talk) 00:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

(response to Ran's message at 23:42, Mar 24, 2005) Don't worry. As long as the general directions is agreed we can do something like Template talk:Europe for each case. — Insta ntnood 00:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

To instantnood: I've going to express my tentative support to all of your article moves proposed so far. I'm still looking at the category moves. Some of them may be unnecessary. -- ran (talk) 00:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

You can always object any of the proposed moves. :-D In fact some of the categories titled "..of the PRC" can be divided into three subcategories, i.e. "of mainland China", "of Macao" and "of Hong Kong". — Insta ntnood 07:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But I still think categories should be done on a case by case basis. -- ran (talk) 16:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Of course. Definitely. — Insta ntnood 16:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously oppose, as long as the term "Mainland China" is being used as thou it is a country. It is not, and even if it "sounds nice" or seems to be more "politically NPOV" (which I am beginning to notice has underlying POV here as far as Instantnood's agendas are concerned), it has not been popularly accepted as a proper terminology for any country. The only times it is useful is when there is a need to talk about the PRC minus HK and Macau. Thats it. I dont think it is being put down merely because people are "afraid of the term".--Huaiwei 00:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No one is referring to Mainland China as a country. It simply functions like a country in many fields, and should be treated like one in those fields. No one is going to argue for, say, Foreign relations of Mainland China, which is simply absurd, but there's nothing wrong with Economy of mainland China. -- ran (talk) 00:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

As to no one: Instantnood is referring to mainland China as a country. And yes, the economy of mainland China is the economy of the People's Republic of China. HK isn't apart of that, yes, so the article needs to explain that. The usage "mainland China" defines the PRC for what it isn't, not for what it is. That isn't acceptable. SchmuckyTheCat 01:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have never do so. — Insta ntnood 01:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

And yes, the economy of mainland China is the economy of the People's Republic of China. -- Funny, then what was that weird money that I saw in Hong Kong? Didn't look like the Renminbi to me...

Instantnood is referring to Mainland China as a country in contexts where it functions like one. -- ran (talk) 01:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't even say that. I said it's just a matter of presentation, like metropolitan France on a list of countries by population or by area. — Insta ntnood 01:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

You happily trivalise the power of presentation in swaying views and opinions. Why dont we use the term Taiwan in all references to the ROC, and insist that it is just a form of presentation anyway?--Huaiwei 18:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Simple. Territories currently administered by the ROC = Taiwan + something. — Insta ntnood 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

You seem quite happy to disallow the Taiwanese from using the term Taiwan, yet you insist the PRC folks has to use Mainland China. The former seems to be a simple solution for you, yet you get all tensed up over minute details in the later. Are we seeing personal interests over factual accuracy here?--Huaiwei 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(to Ran's comment at 01:19, Mar 25, 2005) The HK economy is seperate, but the mainland economy is the economy of the nation and should be named as such. don't define the PRC by what it is not. And instantnood is referring to mainland China anywhere where the PRC and HK don't exactly intersect. That's wrong. It's defining the nation by it's sub-entities. SchmuckyTheCat 01:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you were right, in that case, any reference to the Netherlands, say, Economy of the Netherlands, could be wrong. The Netherlands is not a member of the UN, but the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is one sovereign state with three parts. The Netherlands articles says "the Netherlands" is the European part of the "Kingdom of the Netherlands". — Insta ntnood 01:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

funny then, how List_of_countries_by_population lists the PRC with a number, and HK with a number, and nobody is confused. France is listed as France, with a number, and a parenthetical remark to the term "metropolitan". but nobody is titling categories "metropolitan France". And yes, "The Netherlands" is just one of three parts in a federal system, a federal system that is so powerless it's usually not worth making the distinction. SchmuckyTheCat 01:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The PRC figure on the list of countries by population covers only mainland China. I am not changing it there at this moment because somebody will probably revert it. DOMs of France are integral part of France, with the same status as régions in metropolitan France, except New Caledonia. They are not separate trade entities/economies, and are part of the EU. The Kingdom of the Netherlands, although a loose federation, and the three parts theoretically equal, diplomatic relations and extradition are handled by the national government, which largely overlaps with the government of the Netherlands. — Insta ntnood 02:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the population page. A figure that claims to be of the "PRC" but does not include Hong Kong and Macau is false and misleading.

What are you people going to think of next? Merging Hong Kong, China at the 2004 Summer Olympics and China at the 2004 Summer Olympics? "Yes, I know they went as separate teams, but they're the same country!" -- ran (talk) 02:57, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

(to Ran's comment at 00:39, Mar 25, 2005) You are drawing the line too thin, and I believe your general audience is not going to be able to see the difference, if any. Treating a geographic term of a country as a country because it is assumed to be "functioning like one" is as good as refering to the term as a country. And as far as I am concerned, that is not acceptable. The economy of the PRC can start of dealing with mainly issues in Mainland China, touch on the two SARS by describing economic links and legislation which takes place between them and the rest of the country, before providing links for the full article to the respective economy pages of each SAR. These two SARS do not exit economically independently as much as some of you wish to believe, and they have much scope for discussion within the context of the economy of the PRC, and not confined in the economy of the mainland.--Huaiwei 18:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What are the legislations which take place between the SARs and the rest of the country? In what way they are not economically independent "as sone of you wish to believe"? — Insta ntnood 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well....much more than you wish to admit:

The One country, two systems takes centrestage in dealing with affairs between the two ~~SARS~~SARs and the rest of the PRC.
The Hong Kong Basic Law was not created by only by Hong Kongers for only Hong Kongers.
The Chief Executive of HK didnt get his post without meddling from the PRC.
Travellers between the entities need the Home Return Permit/exit endorsement. Why would a normal passport not do, if they are just normal international boundaries like any other?
The building of the Hong Kong International Airport, although initiated by the British prior to 1997, needed the approval from the Beijing authorities before going ahead. I tot there were claims that transport is not political?
So, air travllers flying from the two SARS to the rest of China was claimed to be "international" because "normal immigratory and customs procedues apply". I do wonder how many of you have actually observed how the PRC airlines such as Air China and China Southern Airlines interprets the markets in the two SARS. I dont think it was mere coincidence, that both companies report their traffic statistics in three categories: "Domestic", which refers to flights to Mainland China, "Regional", which only refers to all flights into and out of the two ~~SARS~~SARs, and "International", which refers to all other flights outside the country. This is in contrast to how Cathay Pacific groups the Mainland Chinese destinations as international as per any other destination outside the PRC. What does this imply? Sometimes we have to realise things can be interpreted quite differently from the opposite party.
The Individual Visit Scheme, a PRC initiative, came into effect to help Hong Kong's tourism industry, and her economy as a whole. I dont see this scheme extended to anywhere outside the PRC.
The Hong Kong branch of the Bank of China is one of the three banks which issues currency notes in Hong Kong.
The Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement heavily demonstrates just how unusually "well treated" the two SARS can be if the Beijing government wishes to, and at any rate, the economical tie up is simply going to be much more enforced. It is a trade and economic deal of the PRC, and it can be fully described in the Economy of the People's Republic of China. Or do we have to split it up between the Economy of Mainland China, as well as the Economy of Hong Kong?
And of coz, the Ties with Pearl River Delta for the two SARS cannot deserve any less mention. So...is Hong Kong as economically independent as romanicised?--Huaiwei 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "Home Return Permit" has been used since the colonial days, and Hong Kong residents only need the identity cards to go to Macao. Whether passport is needed tells nothing. Canadians and Americans can cross the 49th parallel without passport. According to the Basic Law the chief executive is appointed by the CPG upon an election or consultation. The prime ministers, say, of Canada or Australia is appointed by the governors-general on the Queen's behalf. The construction of HKIA was a matter of diplomacy because the PRC government was worried that the construction would leave the SAR government with debts. The distinction between "domestic" and "regional" by Air China and China Southern already reveals that there's some distinctions. Would a US carrier mark its flight statistics to Hawaii or Alaska as regional? The Bank of China (Hong Kong), although state-owned (not wholly), is a commercial bank. It, or its parent company, is not a central bank. The CEPAs with Hong Kong and Macao, respectively, are bilateral trade agreements. The one with Hong Kong is within WTO framework. Ties with the PRD is a regional cooperation. One won't comment cooperation among components of a metropolitan area, say, Detroit-Windsor, an integration that makes any party losing its own characters and jurisdictions. The Individual Visit Scheme is actually a permit for mainland residents to visit Hong Kong and Macao. They issue similar permits for people to visit other countries, tho with different names, quotas and requirements. — Insta ntnood 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

How would you explain why i) Supreme People's Court has not jurisdictions over Hong Kong and Macao? ii) Hong Kong and Macao permanent residents hold different passports? iii) people from Hong Kong and Macao needs a permit to enter mainland China? iv) Hong Kong is a separate member of the WTO? v) residents of mainland China have to apply from mainland authorities to visit Hong Kong and Macao, as they are visiting other countries? v) Hong Kong and Macao issue their own visas to foreign visitors? vi) Hong Kong and Macao are financially independent? — Insta ntnood 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Some facts: i) Vehicles from Hong Kong and Macao have to apply a licence plate from the mainland (usually Guangdong) to go onto roads in the mainland. Vehicles in Canada and the United States can cross the border without any application. The same applies among some members of the European Union. ii) Hong Kong, Macao and the mainland uses different currencies. iii) Investments by Hong Kong and Macao businessmen are foreign investments. iv) Hong Kong and Macao residents are not allowed to join the PLA, PRC's military. v) Extradition is the own business of Hong Kong and Macao. Steven Cheung, an Hong Kong-born Chinese American economists, is wanted by the United States. He cannot stay in Hong Kong, but mainland China. — Insta ntnood 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Amazing stuff! If we can talk this long over these issues in the PRC, I am pretty sure they are worthy of encylopedic articles...on the PRC? ;) --Huaiwei 13:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Chinese, 大陆 is used mostly in contexts where one needs to make a specific distinction, not in all contexts. You wouldn't use it in an article about US-China relations, for instance... but you probably would use it in an article about cross-straits issues. It's a little bit like the lower 48 states or continental United States, used mostly when it's necessary to distinguish the US "mainland" from Alaska and Hawaii (for instance, shipping on purchases sometimes costs extra to Alaska and Hawaii). However, creating categories and articles that use "continental USA" everywhere instead of just USA or America would be very much a POV thing, and highly unnatural. An article that talked about tense relations between "Continental USA" and the European Union over the Iraq war would sound bizarre. "Continental USA" is not the name of a country, and neither is "Mainland China". -- Curps 00:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Alaska and Hawaii are not particularly different from the other 48 states of the United States. They do not participate independently in economic organizations; they do not have separate currencies; they do not have final adjudication; they do not have separate political parties from the 48 states; they do not allow organizations banned in the 48 states; they don't have separate customs authorities or tariffs; they do not have separate passports or require a visa for entry from the 48 states; they do not field their own Olympic teams.

I agree that "Mainland China" is a term used only when a distinction needs to be made. But this situation arises much, much more often than in the case of the Contiguous United States. -- ran (talk) 00:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

And your usage of the term "Mainland China" is supposed to reflect all these differences? Well if that is the case, the term dosent sound very NPOV at all, does it?--Huaiwei 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of Alaska and Hawaii, the US has plenty of jurisdictions where main US law doesn't apply, or has some unique context. Within states, even, as well. From states, to a variety of insular areas to sovereign nations within the nation (native tribelands). The balance between states rights and federal powers is a constant discussion and moving line in american civics. I'd be as if y'all were trying to rename the entire US to some term because a bunch of laws didn't apply in Dixie. That is the relevance, every nation has jurisdictions where federal power is absent, excluded, or uniquely administered. No other nation gets renamed on wikipedia based on the exceptions of it's subdivisions to this or that subject matter. SchmuckyTheCat 03:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unlike the United States, that the federal supreme court (and the federal court system) has jurisdiction over all 50 states, the supreme court of the PRC has no jurisdictions to Hong Kong and Macao. The national laws applied to Hong Kong and Macao are handled by the courts of last resort of their own. — Insta ntnood 11:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

If the laws are indeed seperate, kindly explain the Hong Kong Basic Law?--Huaiwei 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Basic Law is not only a law of Hong Kong. It is, especially articles governing relations between Hong Kong and the CPG, or between Hong Kong and the mainland, applied to the entire PRC. — Insta ntnood 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

(to Instantnood's comment at 11:15, Mar 28, 2005) Please don't lecture me on American Civics and Law. You avoided the point entirely. SchmuckyTheCat 15:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Umm. Hong Kong isn't a native tribeland is it? — Insta ntnood 15:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose As if all the above discussion saying "support" or "object" wasn't already a poll?

The times I think it is appropriate to use mainland china are rare. As a native english speaker, I think it sounds like drivel. Everyone in asia uses it however, so it's a valid term. My primary objection is that it is being used to define the PRC by sub-entities (HK and Macau) and other countries (Taiwan). If HK and Macau are the exception to some article or category with PRC in the title (and there are many exceptions), then short explanatory text, with a possible pointer to an article, should explain the exception. And it isn't NPOV, especially the way it is being used by some contributors. The way it is being used by some contributors here is very POV.

It is also not nearly clear and obvious, for instance, that a Taiwanese person saying "mainland" isn't including HK and Macau. It is a differentiating term for someone from HK, Macau, or Taiwan and has a definite use in HK, Macau, and Taiwan articles. It has little use in the context of the national PRC, which HK and Macau are part of. SchmuckyTheCat 00:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which Taiwanese person is going to include Hong Kong when he/she says "Mainland China"? This sounds positively bizarre to me. (And I ask any Taiwanese person who knows better to correct me, if I'm wrong.) "Mainland China" (dalu) is a wonderfully natural term perfectly accepted in the Chinese-speaking world.-- ran (talk) 00:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The use in Taiwan says nothing about HK or Macau. The Taiwanese simply use it to exclude "the other China" from themselves. SchmuckyTheCat 01:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not from Taiwan and I did not stay there long enough. But as far as I know they don't call people from Hong Kong and Macao as people from Dàlù. — Insta ntnood

I challenge Schmucky to find one Taiwanese person who calls Cantonese-speaking, milktea-drinking, dimsum-munching, English-education-getting Hong Kongers "daluren". -- ran (talk) 01:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Even the MAC of ROC's Executive Yuan does use different laws or guidelines for mainland China and for Hong Kong and Macao. — Insta ntnood 01:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

As a Taiwanese, I feel distant from this topic and thus did not closely follow this discussion. To be honest, I thought HK should be a integral of China after the handover. It did not ever occur to me to make a distinction between Hong Kong and mainland China. However the protest makes me realize that HK is still a united and lively political entity, and also that people still actively pursue their own right and freedom. From my personal point of view, I wouldn't actively make a distinction between HK and mainland China unless the people of HK stress on this distinction and pursue on it. It's only a matter of how people of HK want to portray themselved.

That being said, I do not see a reason to degrade the entity PRC/China or to eliminate PRC/China. IMO, I think the distinction between HK and mainland China should only be made when there is such a need. For example, the political system or the economy. But still, these difference could still be described in the China/PRC article under the China/PRC title. I suggest that articles on HK should be kept as separate articles and should be used as the main articles being introduced in these China/PRC articles whenever HK is mentioned. In this setting, there would be a HK articles parallele to the PRC articles and this keeps HK separate but also an integral of China/PRC. Meanwhile, IMO, Instantnood should know that there is no need to remove PRC/China and replace with mainland China, in order to stress the difference between HK and mainland China, if this ever happen to be his goal (not likely though). Without getting the complexed politics involved, HK would always be HK distinct from mainland China, if people choose maintain their heritage. Much like the identity people assumed in Shanghai or Beijing.Mababa 02:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what I think should be done (and what I think instantnood is trying to do) is to move articles that are already about mainland China to a title that contains the words, "mainland China". A lot of the articles he proposed for moving above already has a disclaimer at the top, saying that the article is only about mainland China, and that there are other articles focusing on Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. What I think is: if it's about mainland China, then why not name it that way? -- ran (talk) 04:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Perhaps it is Instantnood's argument as well. Hmm..... I think this argument is also what concerns other contributers. Since similiar articles in other contries were about a state or nation, the proposed move would create a situation where a geographical entity, mainland China here, be called as a nation. In stead, mainland China is actually large portion of the China/PRC. I guess the proposed move would be justified unless there are plans to broaden the scope of those articles by some minor edits to cover non-mainland China territories and make the article covering a state. This is only a question whether people think they should have articles on the state or articles on the area but not the state. Since it is not my country, I am not in a position to make comment. However, I would lean toward the proposal if there is no grand design to change the contents of these article. Meanwhile, an article with XXX of China would also be throny since we have no idea or consensus on what that China is, politically or geographically. Perhaps "mainland China" would still be a better choice over "China" if "PRC" is not used. I understand how frustrated it could be since the definition of "China" is contineously affected by the opinion from outside of mainland China. But, I hope people would understand it as it is the by product of the NPOV process, and this is exactly the reason why "PRC" is favored than "China" in most cases.Mababa 04:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having economy of Mainland China doesn't mean we think Mainland China is a "country"... we also have economy of Hong Kong, economy of Macau, economy of Puerto Rico, economy of Aruba etc... and those aren't sovereign nations. -- ran (talk) 05:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am absolutely fine with mainland China. I only have some hesitation when we do not have a article on the economy of PRC. I would support have an artilce on a territory. However, if I am a reader, I would expect to search for article on an state. I think XXX on mainland China is fine. I just wonder what would you guys do about the question: should an aritcle on PRC also be created or should the title be redirected to mainland.Mababa 05:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Either redirect or disambiguation would do. — Insta ntnood 12:30, mar 27 2005 (UTC)

Redirect from where to where? Why not XXX of the Mainland to XXX of the PRC? ;) --Huaiwei 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why XXX of mainland China to XXX of the PRC then? — Insta ntnood 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Because the PRC is larger than Mainland China?--Huaiwei 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(to Ran's comment at 05:51, Mar 26, 2005) Notice in all the above examples, only Mainland China is a geographical entity which is not commonly treated as a country. Wikipedia must be the pioneer in that exercise.--Huaiwei 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

May I ask whose interests is the PRC delegations to the WTO representing? May I know why PRC statistics agency compiles population figures that do not include the two SARs? — Insta ntnood 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Again you missed the point. Did the PRC delegations attent the WTO under the name "Mainland China"? Do they report their population figures under the name "Mainland China"? You seem to keep barking up the wrong tree?--Huaiwei 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To repeat myself, whose interests is the PRC delegations representing? Do the statistics of the PRC (as a WTO member) on WTO website and publications include Hong Kong and Macao? — Insta ntnood 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

(to Ran's comment at 04:30, Mar 26, 2005) You might wish to click on User:Instantnood, and then click on "User's contributions" regularly just to realise what he is really doing. I didnt have the energy to do that often....I dont recall doing it more than 3 times, quie contrary to his believe that I am doing it all the time. :D I only tend to notice his edits when the pages he edits kept popping up in my watchlist....and what a scary sight it is even by observing that small number of edits. Many a times, he thinkers with the "disclaimers" above. He set about using categories as a means to accomplish his aims, something many of us did not discover until now. He consistently uses the term "Mainland China" in all edits he does, and in all new pages he creates. Especially the later, when he creates new pages to fit into categories under despite, supposedly in the hope that quantity of articles in categories will sway opinions? He is more then meets the eye I suppose.--Huaiwei 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While the matter is not settled and there is no guideline or convention that we have to stick to, is there nothing wrong for me to edit or to create new pages according to one of the versions in dispute? If I were accomplishing my aims, then what about those who kept reverting? — Insta ntnood 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

My aim is to stop your nonsence, and to respect the processes and procedures of this website when it comes to dispute resolution, if that is not clear enough. What is your aim in comparison?--Huaiwei 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not for you or me to tell who's nonsense. — Insta ntnood 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

(to Mababa's comment at 02:34, 26 Mar 2005) Mababa, what you have come to think is more or less reflective of my concerns. I am glad you are beginning to understand my point, although I would be less hesitant to assume he does have a goal to enforce the differences between the two SARs and that of Mainland China. His actions and perseverance speaks alot.--Huaiwei 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for saying what you have been doing is downplaying the differences between the two SARs and mainland China. — Insta ntnood 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for comments from Huaiwei. I think this is really a topic should be resolved among the Chinese contributers. While it is important for Instantnood to emphasize the difference between mainland China and HK, it may be more important for many Chinese contributers to keep an article on PRC as a country. I personally do not belive that it is really necessary to eliminate PRC to reveal the uniqueness of HK. Actually, the uniqueness of HK has already been revealed to the readers, since there are so many HK articles on its own. It is not really a common usage to equate Mainland China with PRC in English language in my opinion, and therefore I would be more hesitant on redirect from one to the other. It may be justifiable to rename these articles to XXX of mainland China due to the current contents, but it would be strange to redirect PRC, which is a political entity larger than mainland China, to mainland China; I think. Thus, in the case of this name change proposal, perhaps all of the XXX of PRC should become disambiguation articles for mainland China and the two SARs, an arrangement may not be so satisfactory to many Chinese contributers. I think it is only a matter of priority: stressing the difference between HK and mainland China or having an article dedicated to PRC, which is one of the largest countries in the world. We all agree that SARs are unique in PRC. Then the question is why it is important to have articles on the PRC than the mainland China or vice versa.Mababa 05:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's very true. But then, to repeat myself, at the time being I can agree with either redirect or disambiguation. — Insta ntnood 11:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Very well put indeed. To put it abit more harshly (sorry, but my patience has been worn quite thin with this fella here), I dont see why this site should become the target of people with an inferiority complex. The failure to recognise his lack of NPOV when it comes to highlighting differences between the two SARS and that of the rest of China at the expense of everything else is a kind of attitude I would consider dangerous to this site.--Huaiwei 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What a nice way to attack. When people are talking about the facts that she/he might not know very well, she/he considered people are highlighting, and are therefore lack of NPOV. — Insta ntnood 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Support in general, but there are some cases that are less clear. The term "Mainland China" is not meaningless; in fact, it may be one of the few terms that people from Hong Kong, Taibei, Beijing, etc. all agree on. (I'm also in favor of writing it as "Mainland China", with a capital M, to make it clear that it is a fairly precise technical term.) Let's try to split this along the "(one country), several systems" line: if there are several systems involved (e.g. economies), "Mainland China" can be used accurately and appropriately (economy of Mainland China vs. economy of Hong Kong). I'm less sure when there is a conflict between official names and their scope. For example, the Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China has "PRC" in its name, so it is tempting to categorize it as belonging to the PRC even though its jurisdiction does not include Hong Kong. I don't know what to make of such cases, since neither solution ("PRC" vs. "Mainland China") is completely satisfactory. --MarkSweep 01:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I spell with a lowercase "m" by following the rule of some newspapers, such as SCMP and Financial Times. In my opinion the ministry should be categorised under "category:Mainland China". The same applies to Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China. — Instantnood 02:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  - In addition to SCMP and Financial Times, TIME, CBC, BBC and CNN as well. — Insta ntnood 10:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- (to MarkSweep's comment at 01:59, 25 Mar 2005) Clearly both are not satisfactory, and it is obvious we cannot possibly have one set of poll results to dictate the usage of either term for ALL categories. This, ran has apparantly mentioned above in this page, and Intantnood seems to have agreed on too?--Huaiwei 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Exactly. — Insta ntnood 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Support I've been away for the past several days so basically everything that needs to be said has already been said, but I would like to put in my vote for support. Anyway, I essentially agree with Ran's, MarkSweep's, and Mababa's positions. The use of the term Mainland China does not automatically imply that the other entities are on an equal political footing. It's an extremely useful term that is even used by the PRC itself in order to differentiate itself from Hong Kong, Macau, and ROC/Taiwan. But as others have indicated, care should be used to make sure each of the proposed moves are of articles which actually make this differentiation. As for assertions from SchmuckyTheCat that the term is not used by people outside of Asia, that is false. I grew up and live in the U.S. and have known that term for as long as I can remember. The media here uses it as well. --Umofomia 06:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Important: Please see the Basics section above before casting a vote. — Insta ntnood 01:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

If there is no strong opposition over the coming 5 days, I guess we shall proceed to have polls for each case like what is now doing for Taiwan vs. ROC. — Insta ntnood 10:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have started the polls at /China or PRC vs. mainland China. — Insta ntnood 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Non-poll

(08:43, 31 Mar 2005)

Any votes here aren't really votes. They're non-votes. This is a non-poll.

Those of us who like the terminology suggested by Instantnood

Node 08:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Insta ntnood 10:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) (well, should I add my name here? :-D)

Those of us who do not like the terminology not used by Instantnood

NPOv: China, Mainland China, PRC, ROC, SAR, etc.

(SchmuckyTheCat 03:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC))

A lot has been discussed here previously about NPOV. I think most people who have discussed NPOV previously have very valid ideas and proposals. Some movement was made about updating the naming conventions in February but it did not go forward to actually change what is there now. Since then several very disputed rename proposals occurred with the justification that the renames were aligned with the naming conventions.

We've got so much confusion in article layout and terminology that readers are confused. We can't come to concensus because everyone believes their views are being excluded. Minor edits are turning into flame wars. The term "China" has been cut up and re-named to so many different things that nobody can agree on what the generic term can mean. The current terminology is so NPOV about Hong Kong and Taiwan that it is extremely POV about the PRC.

If we all recognize that the PRC is not homogenous and allow terms like "China" to be broad and encompassing, we can stop having so many arguments, needless renames and category pigeonholing. This means the main articles may need some text about terminology and it certainly means minor articles need to place the terms in the correct context.

I think concensus could be reached on the following statements (my examples may or may not exist):

1. "China" and "Chinese" means the entire geographical entity, including the PRC, Taiwan (ROC), Hong Kong, the autonomous regions, and in a purely historical context other areas as well.

2. "China" and "Chinese" is an acceptable but not preferred, term when referring to the People's Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the name "China" (such as "Economy of China") can mention what it does not refer to (such as Taiwan or Macau) with a short text and link inside the article. Even better is a specific article for the other entity. Linking articles should provide the reader, by context, the NPOV of whether the linking article is about the PRC or something else. We should not rename articles from China to mainland China or to the People's Republic of China simply because of a naming convention.

3. "Taiwan" is an acceptable, but not preferred, term when referring to Taiwan or the Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the only the term Taiwan or ROC (such as ROC controlled islands) should explain it's context in the article. We do not need to rename articles to "Republic of China" simply because of a naming convention.

4. The primary articles on China and the People's Republic of China should mention that neither "China" nor the PRC is homogenous in laws, language, custom, etc. The extremely loose federated system for provincial control in the PRC allows a wide variety of systems to be practiced. Individual articles should detail how things are different.

5. The primary article on "China" should contain a short section titled "Mainland China". This short section should link to the main article "Mainland China". Most articles should link to "China#Mainland China" and not "Mainland China". The term "mainland China" is POV dependent and might mean several things, thus, it is up to the linking article to maintain context if it links to that term.

6. There is no entity called "mainland China". Unless necessary, articles and categories should not be titled with it. Articles categorized with "China" or "the People's Republic of China" that have some unique situation that differentiates them from the main body of "China" should list that situation in their own articles.

7. Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People's Republic of China. They are also special. They should not be categorized or treated as seperate from China. Articles about Hong Kong and Macau have the responsibility to state why and how they are different from the People's Republic of China, not vice versa. The differentness of HK and Macau shouldn't be used to rename other Chinese entities.

Reasoning:

<--From re-reading previous discussions, I think these statements agree with the opinions put forth by Curps, Colipon, Mababa, jguk, Explorer CDT, and Suslovan. I think they mostly agree with Huaiwei, Jiang, ran, Mark Sweep, john k, and Penwhale. (I am not attempting to speak for any of you! I am trying to find where different people agree and associate.)-->

These are my reasons for approving the above statements. Your reasons might differ even if you also agree with the statements. To come to concensus, do not focus on my reasons. Come to your own conclusions and see if minor changes to your own POV or the statements above could bring you onboard to concensus.

My opinion on statement 2. Some have said that by letting "China" refer to the PRC that it is NPOV towards Taiwan/ROC, which still has a marginal number of people wishing to control all of China. And/or that Taiwan is also Chinese and that the term "China" (referring to the PRC) excludes Taiwan. This is not the case at all!

First, Wikipedia recognizes the status quo to the political situation. The status quo is that Taiwan does not control the geographical entity called China. It is NPOV to allow China to refer to the PRC in most contexts.

Second, the terms China and Chinese does not exclude Taiwan anymoreso than it excludes ex-patriate Chinese living in Brazil, or native HK residents who fled to Canada, or Americans whose relatives emigrated four generations ago. Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese. Third, it is strongly POV to allow these other entities (Taiwan, HK, etc) to define what China is and is not. The situations in Taiwan and HK need to be addressed in articles about Taiwan and HK. Fourth, we must take into account the intention of the thousands of other articles that sloppily link to "China". We aren't giving the PRC exclusive rights to the name China, but we are acknowleding and accomodating common use.

My opinion on Statement 3. Republic of China is what the government there prefers. We should respect that. However, insisting that "Republic of China" is more accurate or less POV than Taiwan is as POV as anything else. Some Taiwanese prefer Taiwan, some prefer ROC, some probably prefer Formosa or Chinese Taipei. The meaning of Taiwan geographically is one thing, but in our global culture, the word "Taiwan" has expanded to mean the political entity, the language, and the unique culture that has sprung up there. We should encourage broad and encompassing terms. We don't need to rename articles (unless there is a naming conflict, of course) if we can have more explanatory text in the articles.

My opinion on statement 4, 5, 6. This is a huge problem. Mainland China is being used as a substitute, and using the current naming conventions to justify it, for the People's Republic of China. This is horribly POV for Taiwan and HK centric articles (and wiki users) to be defining the PRC with such a term. The term defines what mainland China is not, but can't define what it is because what it is is context dependent. From Taiwan, mainland China is every part of China that isn't Taiwan. From Hong Kong, mainland China is all of China except the SAR.

It is unjustifiable for an article like "Laws of the People's Republic of China" to be in a category called "Mainland China" but not the category "People's Republic of China" simply because an HK centric user feels like the PRC term is exclusive of Hong Kongs special status, even though HK is clearly part of the PRC. An article "Laws of Hong Kong" is good. Renaming an article from "Laws of the PRC" to "Laws of Mainland China" based on the specialness of HK is horrible POV and horrible style - but that is what is happening.

Most links to "Mainland China" aren't meant to be links to an article defining an informal term, they do mean to refer to a subset of China. Which is why they should link to the term as a placeholder (China#Mainland) within the article that most readers actually want to read.

My opinion on statement 7. This has been a point of contention lately. The differentness of HK and Macau have been used to redefine terms that have nothing to do with HK and Macau in articles that don't refer to HK or Macau. Again, HK is not Shenzen is not Beijing is not Tibet. Many areas of China have unique situations, laws and culture. It would be an impossible task to edit all articles on China to explain how the concept differs in each province, AR, SEZ, or SAR.

Additionally, the specialness of HK and Macau have been used to justify HK and Macau as seperate, even equal, entities to the PRC. The two SAR, of course, have many fundamental differences with the PRC. Those differences should be explained, not seperated.

---

Again, these things are fixed by everyone recognizing that China is not homogenous. Laws, economics, food, language, (even the concept of sovereignty!) are all different across China. Beijing is not Shenzen is not Hong Kong is not Tibet. By making it clear to the reader that China is not homogenous and providing links we encourage readers to explore and learn. Or, we can continue to focus on our current efforts and fighting about minor categories, in which case we have lost the big picture and also confused our readers.

Discussion on #Political NPOV

Statement 1.

"China" and "Chinese" means the entire geographical entity, including the PRC, Taiwan (ROC), Hong Kong, the autonomous regions, and in a purely historical context other areas as well.

(Reconsidered... see below) Agree -- "China" is often used to refer to the entire geographical entity and there is no problem with that. --Umofomia 07:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Umofomia is clearly speaking form a mainland China POV. You can even take a look at his user bio. Clearly biased.

Please sign your comment. A contributor from Taiwan can be equally familier with all those issues.

Disagree. Haha... that's funny that someone would accuse me of having a mainland POV... most people generally would consider me having quite the opposite, but I try to hide that here in order to be as NPOV as possible. Anyway, it was in that spirit that I had initially agreed with this statement, thinking it was a rather neutral statement, but after looking at what everyone else had said and thinking it through again, I will have to reconsider, especially given the light that defining geographical China is rather subjective in itself. I've been away for the past several days so it took a while for me to catch up with everything that has happened and follow-up on this. --Umofomia 05:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disagreed China is China and Taiwan is Taiwan. China should not include Taiwan. Although China considers Taiwan to be a rogue territory, Taiwan has its own currency, flag, Olympic team, embasies in foreign countries, delegates to the World Trade Organization, military, etc. Taiwan's statistics are calculated separately from China, including but not limited to: population data, economic data as in GDP, demographic data, etc. CIA factbook even goes further and lists Taiwan as a separate country altogether.

Disagreed--If "China" as a geographical entity includes Taiwan based on history, please also include Mongolia, Korea and Vietnam. If Taiwan is included into China due to Culture, please include Singapore which shared the Chinese culture with a majority Chinese ethnic population exits in that country. Please also remember, before 1945, Taiwanese residents read and write in Japanese. Culture export is not a reason to include other area into a reagion; or half of the world belongs to north america. If "China" as a geographical entity includes Taiwan is based on political system, that is a POV. The political status of Taiwan is debated. ROC arguably do not have sovereignty over Taiwan. Taiwan and mainland China only overlaped within Qing dynasty versus China's 5000 years history. Qing even evaded and denied its responsibility for events occured in Taiwan island. The current NPOV policy make deliberate ambiguity on the definition of "China". IMHO, it prevents endorsing which area is part of China and also safegaurds the possiblity that some areas are not part of China. If we reallky want to define China, then we'd better define it as the least contentious definition: PRC=China, with its claim to other territory. In this way, we still do not exclude Taiwan as part of China, but also avoid endorsing it.Mababa 08:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (Reconsidered... see above) The articles dealing with Chinese history and culture do mention areas that were under Chinese control or influence historically, including the ones you mentioned, so I don't see any problem with that. This geographical area has grown and shrunk with time and the articles on Chinese history make adequate explanations of where Chinese influence extended. I think it's useful that we can use the words "China" and "Chinese" to separate themselves from the political entities, so that we don't have to claim who has sovereignty over what. I think using PRC=China is actually rather the opposite of what you claim, since it explicitly endorses that the ROC does not exist, which is a POV statement. --Umofomia 08:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Slightly disagree. China as a geographical entity has disputed borders. Independence supporters would like to think that Taiwan is not part of China, geographic or otherwise. The term Chinese (if considered to be on par with 中華/華人 etc) can be used to refer to Taiwan, but should be avoided where possible. Politically, for the sake of listing, both the PRC and ROC can go under "China", but we can't define the ROC as the same as Taiwan in a geographical context.--Jiang 09:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- (Reconsidered... see above) I don't think geographical entities can have disputed borders since it's all based on where influence extends to. It's the political entity that has disputed borders. A piece of land may be claimed politically by another state, but if there is Chinese influence over it, then I don't see a problem of having fall under the geographical entity. In addition, I'm not sure the about your assertion concerning Taiwanese independence supporters. Other than probably the radical fringes, they still agree that Taiwan falls under the geographical entity of China. It's the political region that they claim is not part of the political region of the PRC. There is a difference, and we should not confuse the two concepts. --Umofomia 09:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Umofomia, that's incorrect! Taiwan does not fall under the geographical entity of mainland China. That's why there's such a push for 2 terms - "mainland China" and "Taiwan"; clearly separate with different geographical boundaries.
Comment: Wikipedia has to stay NPOV. Geographically Wikipedia has to be careful in dealing with saying Taiwan is part of China the geographical region. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I would like to urge Umofomia to glance over the statement (1) again. A geographical area is always an are with physical boundaries. The geographical area which has grown and shrunk as you proposed is actually the political entity of China and thus does not seem to comform with the common concept for a geographical area.
Thesuggested definition of geographical China using the influence of China(a political entity) as a criteria defining the boarder is undoubtly subjective to one's political point of view and thus is POV by nature. I am not even sure what the criteria, the so called "influence", is. And it makes me wonder why Iraq is not part of geographical US. Looking at the 5000 years of the Chinese history, I do not see why Taiwan has the privilege to be part of China whereas Korea, mongolia and Vietnam do not. As Jiang and Instantnood pointed out, a significant portion of Taiwnese do not like the idea to be considered as part of China, even geographically; and Wikipedia has the responsibility to make its content neutral. IMO, defining Taiwan to be part of the geographical China is not neutral.
Lastbut not the least, tagging people with the radical label is certainly not neutral either. There is a Taiwan strait, a High Seas, separating the island from the mainland China. Perhaps, people in Taiwan would consider those who think Taiwan be part of geograpihcal China more radical than the other way. If we ever want to define the geographical entity, China, we should better come up with some more neutral criteria. However, I do concede that my initial proposal, taking PRC as geographical China, is not ideal. Let me modify my proposal: I suggest that we take mainland China as the definition of the geographical China. I think that would be the most neutral treatment for this.Mababa 05:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Out of all these places with Chinese cultural influence, such as Vietnam, Korea, and exclaves in North America and Europe, Taiwan is the only place fulfilling all of the following: i) with a population of Chinese descent majority, ii) has been ruled directly by China in some part of history (from the end of Tungning Kingdom until 1885), and iii) geographically continguous with the Chinese culture, i.e. not separated by another culture. — Instantnood 10:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  - i)is disputable. There are arguments against Chinese immigration. Your statement could be true and could be untrue. Meanwhile, Singapore has a majority of Chinese people too. Please consider take Singapore into geographical China. ii)This argument is based on political POV. This arguement is not neutral. I believe Vietnam was once a province of China as well. They used to read and write in Chinese too. iii) what is that argument? Taiwan, just like Korea has been ruled by Japan. Chinese culture was interrupted and eliminated to certain extent so that people can not speak chinese. Lastly, why these criteria? Is it because that they fits Taiwan from some position? Or perhaps we can make some other criteria to pull Monglia and Korea into China later after we put Taiwan into China? A geographical entity, in common sense, has a physical boarder. To call Taiwan part of China, geographically is a political POV. To call mainland China as geographical China on the other hand is neutral to the most of the people. I would like to see some criteria based on some simple understandale standard, not convoluted indirect and untenable arguments. Or perhaps you would like to see HK to be pulled out of geographical China since HK currently is not directly controlled by PRC according to your criteria ii?Mababa 05:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Umm. Taiwan is the only place that fulfils all the three criteria. Korea and Singapore do not. — Instantnood 08:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  - Bogus. I have already told you that Taiwan does not fit all the three criteria. Korea is the authentic one really fit your three criteria. 汉朝征服朝鲜，把朝鲜变成了汉朝的四个郡。[5] Please show me your consistency to persuade Korean people to joint China, geographically. Meanwhile you can start to think of making up other criteira which makes Singapore only fits and not the others to include Singapore into China, geographically. How about i)a major Chinese population emphasizing Chinese heritage ii)national leader speaks mandarin iii)Grows black-colored hair?--Mababa 01:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Taiwan is the only example the fulfil all the three criteria at the same time, that is, continguous from Chinese culture geographically, not separate by another culture (as oppose to Singapore, Chinatowns in Toronto, Vancouver, etc.), with a Han Chinese descent majority (as oppose to Korea, Vietnam), and rule by China in some part of history (as oppose to Singapore). — Instantnood 07:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      - I am not certain if I have got what you mean. I gave you my reasoning and you just repeated your sentence. I hope I am not communicating with a robot. Perhaps you can help me understanding your justification if you can give me evidence against Vietman and Korea for fitting the three criteria you proposed. What's more important, I have told you that these three criteria you suggested is arbituary invented by your very own self and does not bear any standing. You can changed your criteira into something else to fit any country: Japan, India, Russia or even Africa. Let me help you to include North America into China this time by giving you another three criteira you would find them useful: i)traded with Chine before 20th century, ii)initially inhabited by mongoloid people iii)have a mouth on verybody's face.Mababa 05:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Yepp. It's my own criteria. Taiwan is the only case which all three criteria are met. Korea and Vietnam doesn't fit because their population is not Han majority. Singapore doesn't fit because it is separate by cultures. — Insta ntnood 12:30, mar 27 2005 (UTC)
    - Strange arguement. Who tells you that Taiwanese are Han? They are mostly aborigines.[6] I told you already that your arguement is just one of the Chinese POV and is not necessarily fact. It does not meet the standard to be called truth. It is frustrating to see you stubbornly insist on your own interpretation and that you were not capable to acknowledge the difference between your knowledge and my previous arguement.
      
      据《史记》记载，殷纣王昏庸无道，他的叔父箕子一气之下，远走朝鲜，建立国家。
      
      在《汉书》中也这样写道：秦汉更迭时期，数万名燕人避战乱进入朝鲜。其中一个叫卫满的燕人头目赶走了箕子的后代，建立了卫氏朝鲜。
      
      汉朝征服朝鲜，把朝鲜变成了汉朝的四个郡[7]
      
      According to historical records, both 箕子,卫满 were all Han Chinese. Please prove me that they are genetically different from Han; otherwise, please stand up and go to article China and Korea to advocate and defend your idea to include Korea into China. As for Vietnamese, many of them still have the Chinese last name and perhaps many of them are Han Chiense as well. I believe that it might worth it for you trying to include Vietman to China. At least give it a try to persuade the Vietnamese in their article; it cost you nothing. Lastly, is China a country uniformly Han Chinese or is this some sort of racial chauvansim? Even Han is not a homogeneous race. Moreover, I would be curious to know where you get this idea to use race as a international standard to define a geographical area. As for Singapore, you may feel like to persuade them someday in the future once you have tailored out your new criteira for them to include Singapore into China.Mababa 01:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Genetically speaking Vietnamese and Koreans are not Hans, although they're mongoloid. Taiwanese are mostly descendant of Hans for Fukien/Fujian. I'm looking for studies such as Y-chromosome or mitochonria DNA to further on this. [8] [9] [10] These researches or articles reveal a little bit.
        Furthermore,Korean and Vietnamese languages are not Sino-Tibetan, but Taiwanese. — Insta ntnood 11:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
        All of your evidence acts against what you claimed. Please read them yourself.Mababa 18:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        The first one is against. The second and the third one are not (well, if I didn't misread). — Insta ntnood 06:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
        I think what is more important for us is that we should both acknowledge our POV and difference. I have not closely read the paper you cited. However, I thought they only showed the difference between the Korean/Japanese with Han Chinese. However, this does not prove they are a different race from Han Chinese. Also, I wonder if they see a difference between Taiwanese from the southeast asian. Most likely, this paper would also suffer from not distinguishing Taiwanese mainlander with native Taiwanese when they took the samples from Taiwanese residents. On the other hand, this paper[11] would provide a different view point. I think this debate should be ended here, once we have acknowledged our different POV, I hope you would agree :) Mababa 02:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        Right. It's nice to talk with you Mababa. :-) — Insta ntnood 05:56, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
        It's been a very enlightening conversation. I was actually wondering what's in that paper which you cited quite some time ago. I really enjoyed it. :)Mababa 21:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        
        Yes. And I know something new that I didn't know before. — Insta ntnood 10:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Mababa: regardless of your political opinions, which I respect, please take into account that there are approximately one billion people in the world who would consider Taiwan to be a part of China in every sense of the word. In the spirit of NPOV, I don't agree with your proposal that "geographical China" = "mainland China". -- ran (talk) 02:13, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Ran, nice to talk with you again. :) I am very awared of that position, which I respect as well, and I actually have no intention to make my own policy. Yes, in the spirit of NPOV, we should not take the position mainland China=geographical China, nor should we consider Taiwan to be a part of China either for the very same reason.Mababa 02:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Hi Mababa ;), I agree with you, that would also be POV. That's why I proposed a rewrite of the intro of the China article, which you can see further down. -- ran (talk) 04:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    - Yep Yep... :) I have just read your new proposal. I think that is wonderful! Brilliant! I really like it.Mababa 05:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. Ref Jiang. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. China is a term subject to POV. To different people, it can refer to either their favourite Chinese government (PRC or ROC) or a sum of governments (PRC + ROC, if not Mongolia). Its territorial extent is also a subject of great dispute. As such China should not be described as any more than a term subject to POV. -- ran (talk) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I think our current policy of describing China as a "geographical entity" is problematic: isn't that just one POV among many too? -- ran (talk) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is problematic when the term is perfusely used to refer to a state in the real world; but I have no good remedy for this. The corollary proposal for this change is to redefine the term "Taiwan." The current policy of describing "Taiwan" as a "geographical entity" is also merely one POV among many too. (I do not expect to recieve a robotic response telling me Taiwan is a geographical entity.)--Mababa 06:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - The current treatment of residing the government article at Republic of China is sticking with the status quo. Perhaps in the Taiwan article we can add some details that "Taiwan" is used commonly by many people to refer to the government/regime/state. — Insta ntnood 06:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I also agree with Ran in that we should not describe China as a "geographical entity". In fact, I thought we had consensus on the 23rd until the reversion war over the weekend when some people started reverting the change back to pre-discussion text.--205.174.8.4 15:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement 2.

"China" and "Chinese" is an acceptable but not preferred, term when referring to the People's Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the name "China" (such as "Economy of China") can mention what it does not refer to (such as Taiwan or Macau) with a short text and link inside the article. Even better is a specific article for the other entity. Linking articles should provide the reader, by context, the NPOV of whether the linking article is about the PRC or something else. We should not rename articles from China to mainland China or to the People's Republic of China simply because of a naming convention.

Hesitantly Agree -- Although the term "China" is often used to refer to the PRC only, it does do the reader a disservice by not adequately making it be known that there are political implications behind it. I would support it if a statement at the top of each article named "xxx of China" specifically states that it refers to the PRC and not to the ROC, et al. We should even make this statement a template so that it's consistent across all articles. --Umofomia 08:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Generally disagree. "China" is not acceptable when referring to the People's Republic of China because it either implies Taiwan is not part of China or is renegade. Neither is NPOV. I will take issue if people move away from the current naming, but I won't be deliberatly moving articles like "economy of China" as part of an established series of articles. --Jiang 09:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Responses to reasoning given above: "Taiwan does not control the geographical entity called China" is POV and inaccurate because this implies that Taiwan is not part of the geographical entity of China. Having a "marginal number of people wishing to control all of China" is not relevant since as long as we see Taiwan as part of China, then China is divided. This is the state of affairs we are dealing with, not what things should be. Thereofore it is still POV to equate China=PRC. "Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese" cannot neutrally apply, especially if China=PRC because that means Taiwan is part of PRC. Overseas Chinese are not part of China... Regarding the statement, "it is strongly POV to allow these other entities (Taiwan, HK, etc) to define what China is and is not." we did not allow these entities to define China. Instead, we are looking at the current state of affairs from an objective standpoint. We are not using the same terms Taiwan or HK is using. "We aren't giving the PRC exclusive rights to the name China, but we are acknowleding and accomodating common use." Common use is POV and since this is in English, western-centric. Westerners are mostly ignorant of the situation. --Ji ang 09:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comments: First, Wikipedia do not see "Taiwan as part of China, then China is divided". This position is a POV. In my opinion and also many other's position, Taiwan is NOT part of China, politically or geographically. This is the affairs between two states we are dealing with, not what things should be. Secondly, the statement "Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese" is such a strong POV that I do not understand how could anyone see it as neutral. ROC may be Chinese due to its historical root, Taiwan definitely is not. If Taiwan is Chinese, then the whole Asia is Chinese. Thirdly, Rejecting common usage is also an POV. A NPOV can only be reached when all POVs are presented. We are not superior or more clever than any ignorant westerners. Lastly, PRC's definition can not be taken as neutral because its definition extends over PRC controlled territory, and because it is opposed by other areas. The China can not be clearly defined is because the NPOV process in Wikipedia. As long as PRC's definition of China is opposed for one single day, we won't be able to take PRC's definition as neutral, not because we want to bias against PRC. It is because PRC's claim is biased against other area's position and against the reality.--Mababa 04:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Exactly. Wikipedia should not show any inclination on whether Taiwan is or is not part of China (China here does not mean the PRC). Taking either side is already not NPOV. Everybody's view should be respected, but that does not mean it has to satisfy both sides or arguments.
    Nonethelessfor disambiguation purposes sometimes slight implications of Taiwan being part of China is unavoidable, such as companies and airlines that many still bear the name China/Chinese/Chunghwa, and languauges and culture. Such way of presentation is merely for letting information flows more smoothly without barriers. It does not imply Taiwan is or is not part of China. — Insta ntnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. "China" does not equal to "PRC", or the other way round. It is already a POV to say it's "acceptable thought not preferable". The rest of the problem is already solved by redirects, disambiguations and notices. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree in general. However, in a long article about the PRC, "Chinese" may be Ok as an abbreviated form when it's clear from context what is meant. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I can accept it as a reader, but not as an editor. — Insta ntnood 10:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed--Mababa 04:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. This is an NPOV way to do things. We should be using NPOV terms that everyone agrees with, such as "Mainland China", as much as we can. -- ran (talk) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Saying mainland China implies the POV that Taiwan is a part of China. Using China with the clarification that it does not cover Taiwan or Hong Kong would be just fine. Using PRC unfortunately is quite inappropriate when not dealing with politics.--Amerinese 03:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- What do you call the part of the PRC without Hong Kong or Macau? -- ran (talk) 05:18, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Statement 3.

"Taiwan" is an acceptable, but not preferred, term when referring to Taiwan or the Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the only the term Taiwan or ROC (such as ROC controlled islands) should explain it's context in the article. We do not need to rename articles to "Republic of China" simply because of a naming convention.

Hesitantly Agree -- it probably is a little silly renaming every article to "xxx of the Republic of China" and that most people would not readily know that the ROC refers to Taiwan, since many are ignorant of Chinese history. However, using Taiwan for the ROC also does the reader a disservice like I explain for statement 2. Again, perhaps we can have a templated statement at the top of any article named "xxx of Taiwan." --Umofomia 08:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed--And I provide fresh-the-ink-has-yet-to-dry sources from the best (WP) and the most respected (NYT) papers in the US:
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64569-2005Mar24.html
2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61389-2005Mar23.html
3) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/international/asia/26cnd-taiwan.html?
4) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/international/asia/23embargo.html
I realize these are contentious political articles, but I am just pointing to the usage of the words Taiwan and Republic of China (Taiwan). Don't shoot the messenger, just look at how he uses words!--Amerinese 22:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Articles on newspapers are for average readers, not for encyclopedia purpose. — Instantnood 12:30, mar 27 2005 (UTC)
  - Instantnood holds an inconsistent position. See his comments on mainland China below. We should not ignore common usage, and you need a very good reason for defying it.--Amerinese 17:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - I'm not saying common usage can be ignored. But by equating NPOV and accuracy, it's much more appropriate to reside the article on the state/government/regime of the ROC at "Republic of China" than at "Taiwan". The notice at the top of the Taiwan article already addressed the common usage, and help users who only know about the common usage. For inline text of an article I always use "Republic of China (Taiwan)". — Insta ntnood 19:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed--The more inclusive the definition is, the more neutral the articles would be. Specifically rejecting the western common usage is surely a POV, with the caveat that usage may or may not be fact.Mababa 08:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Somewhat disagree. This is among the most contenous points in Taiwanese politics: seethis and this. There are some contexts where "Republic of China" is obivously appropriate eg "flag of the Republic of China" while other contexts where it is not "Mountains in the Republic of China". Use political terms for political topics and non-political terms from non-political topics. It just can't be defined as clear cut as no. 3--Jiang
- Hey Jiang. It's not Taiwanese politics, but ROC politics or cross-strait politics. :-) By the way, there are some hills or peaks outside of Taiwan, am I right? Should it be done according to the current treatment to category:Airports of the Republic of China vs. Taiwan, and category:Townships in the Republic of China vs. Taiwan? — Insta ntnood 10:21, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. "Taiwan" does not equal to "ROC", or the other way round. It is already a POV to say it's "acceptable thought not preferable". The rest of the problem is already solved by redirects, disambiguations and notices. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:05, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. The current conventions are just fine. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed Taiwan can be called Taiwan without referring to Taiwan ROC. The current page lists Taiwan as island then points people to ROC.
Partially agree. I agree that a disclaimer needs to be inserted into the article's text especially when it is apparantly not clear to most of our audiences concerning the whole "Taiwan" and "ROC" terminology issue. Where needed, articles which are deemed to be more appriopriate to use one term should have the other term created and redirected to it. I would, however, feel it is indeed neccesary to rename some articles because they become factually inaccurate when taking into account the differing technical definitions.--Huaiwei 03:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agree Taiwan page should state Taiwan instead of Taiwan the geographical island.

Anytime you search for Taiwan, it pulls up information on Taiwan the nation, not the physcial island. http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=Taiwan&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt

- This is already a POV, although it;s prevalent. And please sign your comment. — Insta ntnood 16:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Somewhat agree. It seems that people here on Wikipedia have developed an allergy to the term "Taiwan", causing them to use it as little as possible. :) But have you noticed how, regardless of belief or opinion, everyone seems to agree what "Taiwan" refers to? A Taiwanese independence advocate would say, "Quemoy is controlled by the Nation of Taiwan." A Mainlander would say, "Quemoy is occupied by the military of Taiwan." But regardless of whether it's a nation or whatever, everyone agrees that "Taiwan" refers to the government and extent of the Republic of China! -- ran (talk) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- There's no political entity called "Taiwan" yet. The fact is, the act of renaming the entity is currently seen as a move towards independence. This is why that I cannot agree with your argument, Ran. The political entity, as well as the passport issued by the government, is still "Republic of China". True, they've been trying to put "Taiwan" along with it. But the PRC government pressed other countries to trouble those who have "Taiwan" on the cover of their passports. Until the government located on the island of Taiwan changes its name and announce it, I will NOT accept the argument that Taiwan=ROC. Penwhale 13:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - But is the term "Republic of China" any better? The PRC has not recognized the legitimacy of this term since 1949. Most countries have not since the 1970's. PRC refers to the ROC as the "Taiwan Authority". The ROC joins international organizations as "Chinese Taipei". If "Taiwan" is not NPOV, "ROC" isn't particularly better. -- ran (talk) 16:09, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    - I second that point. The PRC POV is inconsistent. I don't think we can trust it to say that there is more than one POV.--Amerinese 22:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement 4.

The primary articles on China and the People's Republic of China should mention that neither "China" nor the PRC is homogenous in laws, language, custom, etc. The extremely loose federated system for provincial control in the PRC allows a wide variety of systems to be practiced. Individual articles should detail how things are different.

Comment -- I don't exactly know what you mean here. In my opinion, the main article on China is fine as it is since it talks about things under the geographic and historical definition of China. The main article on the PRC is fine as well since it talks about the political entity. --Umofomia 08:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: China is not a "loosely federated" State. Laws, customs, immigration, demographcs, economy, etc., are the business of mainland authorities. The articles on these topics do not deal with Hong Kong and Macao. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Agree that neither the PRC nor Taiwan (nor China by anyone's definition) is culturally, linguistically, or ethnically homogeneous. But the PRC is, at least de iure, not an "extremely loose federated system". --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The PRC is not homogeneous.... but that heterogeneity applies to only a few million people out of what, 1.3 billion? -- ran (talk) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Well, I would say that the politics of the PRC is interesting because on the one hand, they are authoritarian and can effect some policies very quickly that would be impossible to do in a democracy like the US, such as crushing the Falun Gong movement. On the other hand, they do not seem centralized when it comes to other policies like shutting down state industries (a lot of objections from different parts of the gov't). Cultural heterogeneity? I think it's true, they are quite different. Just consider the number of languages they have. That's not a characteristic of Western Hemisphere countries and many other countries in the Eastern Hemisphere as well.

If though by political heterogeneity you mean Taiwan is a part of China, then I completely disagree.--Amerinese 22:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Chinese culture is remarkably heterogeneous but homogeneity, ever since Qinshihuang created the first China by uniting several states (please don't call it unifying China because that implies China existed prior to the unification) the rulers of China have constantly attempted to enforce cultural homogeneity for political purposes. This is reflected in the attempt to call the Chinese family of languages dialects (they are mutually unintelligible and linguistics would mostly disagree with this common usage). Taiwan I could see as being part of a greater Chinese culture the way that there is a greater Latin American/Spanish culture. But this has nothing to do with politics.--Amerinese 22:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- IMO, calling languages dialects is just a matter of translation. There's very few, if not no, European languages sharing the same writing standard, which the writing standard is mutually intelligible, while the spoken variants are not. Chinese writing system is standardised, and that's Chinese call it yǔyán (in Pinyin). The spoken variants are therefore subordinate to it, and are called fāngyán. When they got translated "language" and "dialect" seem to be the right words, tho it is not in terms of accuracy. — Instantnood 12:30, mar 27 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm aware that it is misleading in Chinese as well as creating a fiction of cultural unity is important domestically, probably more so, than internationally! In any case, there is one writing standard, but this standard is of Mandarin, not really of local dialects. You should be well aware of that being that you are knowledgeable of Hong Kong. For those that know standard written Chinese, but whose native Chinese language is not Mandarin, they have to spend quite a bit of time to learn it in school and consciously deviate from their own native language. You misunderstand the relationship between spoken and written language. The existences of Cantonese and more and more so Taiwanese written standards is proof that they are not the same thing.--Amerinese 17:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Standard Mandarin or Putonghua not the same as Beijing dialect. It is based on modern written Chinese, which is perhaps marginally a constructed language. The syntax and paradigm of modern Chinese, especially sentence structure, are heavily influenced by western languages. When a non-Mandarin speaking people reads a passage written in Chinese, she/he uses her/his own language to read it out. — Instantnood 19:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
      - You still have not made any worthwhile points. When non-Mandarin speaking people read a passage written in Chinese, they use their own local language's pronounciation to read it out. But you could not say that one could talk in one's own dialect using the syntax and grammar and diction of written Chinese. So what if you use local pronounciations? It's still not the way you would normally talk. You still have not responded to the political motivations of calling it a dialect either. For one serious linguistic who has studied this, one of the most respected Sinologists from the west, I recommend that you read John DeFrancis. Don't give me any crap about how Chinese is not his native language. If anything, he knows ten times more about Chinese than the ordinary native.--Amerinese 08:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        I agree the spoken variants are languages, and I myself call them languages, but not dialects, in English. But still in Chinese they are fangyan not yuyan.
        TheChinese family of languages is thought by their speakers to be closer than other families of languages. because they share the same writing standard. And that's the reason why Chinese people use the vocabulary fangyan to refer to the language family. Bear in mind that modern written Chinese is a relatively recent invention, with respect to China's long history. Prior to it, the classical written standard correspond to no spoken variant. Even the modern writing standard does not 100% correspond to the northern spoken variants, not to mention Beijing dialect. Mandarin or Beijing dialect speakers do not speak in the same way like standard Chinese is written. — Insta ntnood 16:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
        Really now, you sound really repetitive. I've already told you that the reason it's called fangyan is for political reasons. Again you did not respond. Again, I tell you that they share a single writing standard that corresponds to a spoken language that is not any local Chinese language, but is closest to standard Mandarin. No written language is ever the same as the spoken language (and this is obvious so I'm not sure what your point is). It is obviously closely related to standard Mandarin and though, again, you could use for example, a Shanghainese pronounciation for reading standard Mandarin 1) it sounds extremely abnormal 2) today, everyone in China is taught Mandarin so no one would do that 3) innovations in Shanghainese are not normally accepted into the written standard. Do not lecture me about the history of the Chinese language. Make your points, if you have any.
        
        I have no idea what you're arguing regarding the the somewhat recent innovation of writing in colloquiual spoken standard Mandarin. So you are saying... what? That before that, prior to the 20th century? 1) You know what the state of Mandarin speaking was back then? Very few people spoke Mandarin then. Let's not even talk about how many people were literate. 2) that form of written Chinese did not correspond with ANY spoken Chinese contemporary with it. This is not based on but with some differences. This is radically different from spoken Chinese of the time. So in fact, your point about a single written standard is true only in the sense that it corresponds with NONE of the Chinese languages and where an extremely small percentage can actually read that "standard". Seriously, you need to think out what you're saying before you say it.
        
        Regarding Mandarin and Beijing Chinese--while Beijing Chinese was the basis for standard Mandarin, everyone knows that Beijing Chinese has diverged from standard Mandarin. It's not so much that it's unintelligible, but hey, it's really pushing it at times. I.e. er's everywhere and too much "h". Sure, I admit, there are those that feel that Beijingers speak the most accurate Chinese. This is far from the truth. Being the political capital, they perhaps speak Mandarin with the accent of prestige (in this sense it is a real dialect), but it is not true that those characteristics are a part of standard Mandarin. Between the rest of China and Taiwan, there are way too many non-Bejing Mandarin speakers for the Beijing accent to be accepted, and anyways, I would suspect in fact, that Beijing parochialism is what drives the changes, and in fact, they want to be different from standard Mandarin.
        
        Please also read Shanghainese. You make no claims that you can back up. Chinese is a more closely related group of languages than what family?--Amerinese 07:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        I do not agree it's called fangyan because of political reason. Among Chinese people it has been long perceived that the single writen standard is a yuyan, and the spoken variants are fangyan. The written standard was classical Chinese or wenyan in the past. Standard Mandarin is more or less a constructed spoken language with the syntax based on the then developing new writing standard, namely modern Chinese or baihua, and the pronunciation based on Beijing dialect of the Mandarin group.
        Instantnood, is that you? In any case, Chinese popular terms about their own language are very suspect. Tell me for example how you would translate word into Chinese. If you think about it hard enough, you realize there is no such term. Likewise, I seriously doubt that fangyan came into existence as a ci based on a complex, modern, sophisticated linguistic awareness of languages worldwide and their historical relations. Again, I understand the history of the Chinese written language (though I'm no academic expert), so no need to respond to points with condenscending explanations of basic facts. I know where guanhua came from and I know what wenyanwen is. Respond to the above points please.--Amerinese 07:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        
        How come I didn't sign my comment? :-) Anyways. My position is always the same, that is, calling languages fangyan was not a result of political reasons. — Insta ntnood 08:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Statement 5.

The primary article on "China" should contain a short section titled "Mainland China". This short section should link to the main article "Mainland China". Most articles should link to "China#Mainland China" and not "Mainland China". The term "mainland China" is POV dependent and might mean several things, thus, it is up to the linking article to maintain context if it links to that term.

Somewhat Disagree -- I typically don't like linking to subsections of articles since subsections can end up getting renamed or removed. Also, I don't think mainland China is POV at all because it refers to the geographical entity, which also happens to coincide with the areas administered by the PRC excluding HK and Macau. In my opinion, it's on the same level as calling the ROC Taiwan, which you seem to support. --Umofomia 08:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree Mainland China means areas under the control of the PRC except HK and Macau in almost all contexts. The ambiguity of the term is being exaggerated by you. It is commonly used in Chinese for neutrality sake. It is the least POV of the terms. PRC and ROC are very much more POV. --Jiang
Strongly disagree. I agree with Umofomia and Jiang. Furthermore Metropolitan France, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Lower 48 all have separate articles. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
good luck going to an American article and trying to pigeonhole national articles into "Category:Lower 48" SchmuckyTheCat 23:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That is a false analogy. The reason why the use of Mainland China is often justified is because there are actually different systems of laws in place with respect to the SARs. If Alaska and Hawaii were deemed special regions as well, then the analogy would apply, but they are not so the analogy doesn't apply. --Umofomia 23:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. The term "Mainland China" (大陸) is not ambiguous. All sides more or less agree what it refers to, and all parties use it, e.g. the ROC has a Mainland Affairs Council, HK refers to cross-border exchanges with the Mainland, etc. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Can anyone confirm without all doubt that when the Taiwanese use the term "Mainland China", they are always excluding the two SARs, and not the government based in Beijing? Secondly, can anyone also confirm, that all overseas Chinese around the World, including in Singapore where I come from, also use the term "Mainland China" in the same way?--Huaiwei 03:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A search on Google on the Strait Times and Lianhe Zaobao (大陸)/(內地) already tells. — Instantnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah, and I suppose you didnt notice they almost always refer to the term "Mainland China" because they are talking about Hong Kong in the same sentence? That still isnt a demonstration of how Singaporeans would use the term "Mainland China" when not talking about Hong Kong or Taiwan. And btw, Its interesting that newspapers are being used as representative of usage on the street now. The SCMP spells Macau as Macau. Care to comment?--Huaiwei 11:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - But the Macanese government uses both, and it uses Macao more often than Macau.
    - This search gives 34 hits. Try it also with Zaobao. — Insta ntnood 12:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    - Quoted from this article on Zaobao website: " Within the Chinese language, there are already discernible differences in the Chinese used in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. ". — Insta ntnood 10:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  - (response to Instantnood's comment at 09:34, Mar 23, 2005) I want to point out that Instantnood responded to my posting of newspaper articles by saying that they are for common usage, not encyclopedic usage. But here, all of a sudden it's okay. It is an inconsistent position that until he chooses one or the other, his/her opinion cannot be taken seriously.--Amerinese 16:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Huaiwei doubted if the term "mainland China" was used in the same way by people, say, from Singapore. What I did was to show him it was. The term does appear on Singaporean newspapers. My position has always been the same, that is, to be as NPOV as possible, and to be as accurate as possible. — Insta ntnood 17:28, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - Agreed, Amerinese. He quotes from a particular source when it is in his favour, and steers clear from the same source when it is not. I do not know if this is supposed to enforce his believe that he is being accurate, or even NPOV. As far as I know, he fails dismally in being NPOV in particular.--Huaiwei 18:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - The quotes from Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao were to tell Huaiwei the term "mainland China" is also used in Singapore. Quotes by Amerinese illustrated common use of the term "Taiwan". Are the two events comparable? — Insta ntnood 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
        We obviously know what your intentions are. No need to explicitely say it. What you fail to catch, thou, is your lack of consistency in arguments. You reject the use of newspapers as a demonstration of "common usage" in one instance, and accept it in another. Based on this, in what way are you to assume, that the usage of the term by the Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao (something I did not even deny, btw) is supposed to reflect the government in Beijing, and all things to do with the PRC, with or without references to the two SARS? I asked you this, and you seem to miss the point. Obviously the term gets used in the press here, and gets used in everyday speak. My question to you, is was it used as a substitute to the term China or the PRC in refering to the country of the PRC?--Huaiwei 22:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        The articles from Straits and Zaobao were to illustrate it is not unheard in your hometown. It was not a demonstration of common usage.
        Incase you've missed my answer that "mainland China" is used in articles with no reference to Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, I copy and paste the link here, from my comment at 12:45, Mar 23, 2005. [12].
        And, again, to repeat myself, "mainland China" is not a country. It is used to refer to territories administered by the PRC, minus Hong Kong and Macao. — Insta ntnood 11:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Out of this messy potpourri of terms, (China, PRC, ROC, Taiwan, etc.), "Mainland China" is the most NPOV term that we have. I say we make use of it as much as we can. -- ran (talk) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment.I am beginning to have serious doubts over your open-armed acceptance of the term "Mainland China" as a cure-all, by insisting that it is the least NPOV. If NPOV is what you want, than there are better terms then that...Zhonghua for one. Ironically, I once tought the term "Mainland China" was geographic, and hence slightly more NPOV, until the almost obssessed keeness in the usage of that term by Instantnood has made me realise just how UN-NPOV it is. That he has been promoting the use of the term over the PRC because of his anti-PRC slant has caught the attention of not just myself. Even non-Asians have noticed and commented on this, and they could sence his usage of (what we used to think was) an innocent term to advance political agendas. I am quite amused some of the ethnic Chinese above fail to observe this, probably in their pre-occupation over the Taiwan/ROC issue?--Huaiwei 18:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm afraid you're getting too far. Even the PRC government uses the term "mainland China" to refer to itself, when Hong Kong and Macao are excluded. It's your ignorant, excuse me for saying, of not knowing about it, and its usage. — Instantnood 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - Partaking in name-calling and labelling others as ignorant does not advance this discussion. They reflect rather poorly on your conduct and maturity level instead. I have not denied that the term "Mainland China" IS in use, even by governmental officials in the PRC. However, I have strongly refutted the suggestion that this term is a valid substitute for the term "PRC" in all circumstance, something you are obviously trying to do here as demonstrated by your setting up of this poll in trying to have all categories renamed as "Mainland China" over that of the "RRC. I am glad that basic common sence prevails here, and no one exactly buys your idea in trying to come up with a convetion to actually dictate how all future categories should be so named. And of coz may I ask, if the PRC government has accepted the use of the term "Mainland China" to refer to the country of the PRC? Is the official short-form of the country name "Mainland China"? Do they call it the laws of Mainland China, or the laws of the PRC? Do they call their airline entities of "Mainland China", or the PRC? Do they call themselves citizens of "Mainland China", or the PRC? Apparantly, you fail to grasp even my key points. Ignorance? Well...its relative I suppose. ;) --Huaiwei 22:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - No. The move does not apply to certain articles and categories, and I am not suggesting to subsitute the term "PRC" with "mainland China" in all circumstance. Please scroll up and read again.
        Whena law is not applicable and applied in Hong Kong and Macao, is it a law of the PRC, or a law of mainland China, no matter its title? How do you call a person holding a PRC passport to travel, as oppose to a holder of an HKSAR passport? When an airline is considered a foreign airline, and considered international flights in Hong Kong, is it an airline of the PRC, or of the mainland? You're simply sticking to the superficial side of the items, without thinking about what actually they are. — Insta ntnood 11:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Statement 6.

There is no entity called "mainland China". Unless necessary, articles and categories should not be titled with it. Articles categorized with "China" or "the People's Republic of China" that have some unique situation that differentiates them from the main body of "China" should list that situation in their own articles.

Somewhat Disagree -- I don't see why you keep insisting that there is no such entity called "mainland China" (大陸). Even the PRC uses the term all the time when it wants to refer to itself excluding HK and Macau. However, I am in favor of using the term only to refer to the geographical entity rather than a political entity. I have no problem with articles entitled "xxx in Mainland China" if they talk about places or things situated in the PRC excluding HK and Macau. But if it refers to something that relates more to politics or has governmental influence, then I would be in favor of using "xxx in the People's Republic of China." --Umofomia 08:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Even if it involves the influence of the government, in most occasions "..of mainland China" is more appropriate. The ministry of transport or the ministry of finance, for instance, has no jurisdiction outside mainland China. Economy and demographics articles also involve statistics compiled by the government, but again, these statistics cover only mainland China. — Insta ntnood 10:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree The statement is just plain false. There is an entity called "mainland China" and it is commonly defined as the PRC minus the two SARs. Agree with Umofomia: use non-political terms for non-political contexts.--Jiang
Strongly disagree. Though I can't tell if "mainland China" qualifies to be fit into the definition of "entity", "mainland China" is a valid term in referring to PRC's territories minus Hong Kong and Macao. See also my comment and the materials produced by the PRC government below. — Insta ntnood 10:15, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. Ref Jiang & Instantnood. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. The term Mainland China is often used to keep China from being confused with Taiwan or Hong Kong. Mainland China is China and Taiwan is Taiwan.
Comment. I personally read this in quite a different light. I could tell he is suggesting this in light of the recent spate of categories in particular which were created which favours the use of "Mainland China" over the "People's Republic of China". I mentioned before that "Mainland China" as a country or a state does not exist. Since it does not exist, why is it being treated as thou it is a country? Why place categories of "XXX in Mainland China" together with other categories which are classified by countries? Does this not imply that "Mainland China" is a country? I do not find this acceptable, as I mentioned before earlier in this page. The usage of the term "Mainland China" cannot be compared with that of "China", the "People's Republic of China", "Taiwan", or the "Republic of China", because unlike any of these, has the term "Mainland China" commonly been treated or assumed to be in reference to a country (whether independent or otherwise), be it de facto or officially?--Huaiwei 03:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. To copy from what I said abouve: Out of this messy potpourri of terms, (China, PRC, ROC, Taiwan, etc.), "Mainland China" is the most NPOV term that we have. I say we make use of it as much as we can. -- ran (talk) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Statement 7.

Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People's Republic of China. They are also special. They should not be categorized or treated as seperate from China. Articles about Hong Kong and Macau have the responsibility to state why and how they are different from the People's Republic of China, not vice versa. The differentness of HK and Macau shouldn't be used to rename other Chinese entities.

Disagree -- HK and Macau are definitely part of the PRC, but because they are special, they often have radically different systems from the PRC, which justifies them having their own separate articles. I don't think making them separate is an implicit endorsement of them being equal political entities to the PRC. The same can apply to any place in China. For instance, if there is something in Shenzhen or Shanghai or whatever that has its own special situation different from the PRC that takes more than a few paragraphs to explain, then they also could have their own separate articles. Conversely, if there are things in HK or Macau that aren't too different or don't particularly have enough content to justify separate articles, then they could be merged into an article on the PRC, but trying to place everything under the umbrella of the PRC would make some rather unwieldy articles. --Umofomia 08:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. "Mainland China" is on its own right on matters not related to diplomatic relations and national defence. See also my comment below. — Insta ntnood 10:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree to the extent that I can make sense of this. Ref Umofomia & Instantnood. --MarkSweep 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I believe what needs to be better emphasized in the above statement, is that while we do treat the two sars as thou they are "countries" in respect of their ~~SARS~~SARs status, we must also be careful about not treating them as thou they are countries on the same level as the PRC. Look up most international organisations, and they often either indicate Hong Kong as "Hong Kong, China", or in my most recent research on aviation issues, I noticed Hong Kong and Macau were listed under the PRC under the name "Hong Kong SAR" and "Macau SAR", along with a disclaimer below which reads "For statistical purposes the data for China excludes the traffic for the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions (Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR), and that of the Taiwan province of China." Taiwan province of China?? Well...that was taken from the ICAO Journal! It seems that many of those international bodies, while listing Hong Kong's data seperately, are also careful about indicating the fact that Hong Kong is there for statistical reasons rather then anything political, and that can actually be said too for many other publications as wide ranging as economics to sports. Therefore, I do not think the emphasize should be solely on "how different" the systems are....for just how different is different for it to be of note?--Huaiwei 03:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's somehow meaningless. You can always find out plenty of sources supporting your claims. The some thing can be done likewise for the opposite view. — Instantnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - That is the point. So long that we can find opposing views out there, who are we (and who are you) to come up with "conventions" which are contrary to half of those views?--Huaiwei 09:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's simply because the members of the organisation you looked at, the ICAO, are all sovereign States (list of members). The "S" in "States" is capitalised all the way through this page. Mainland authorities, however, do not add Hong Kong's figures into its own statistics. There must be some reasons for doing so. — Instantnood 10:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - And your point being? The figures are split, which you love to highlight. But then why do they write "Hong Kong SAR", and even list it under the PRC? And why insert that disclaimer? There must be a reason for that too, wont you think? And have you seen the physical journal to know what I am talking about?--Huaiwei 10:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It's because all its members are sovereign States. Hong Kong is not a sovereign State and therefore couldn't be a member. The disclaimer makes it clearer that Hong Kong is not a member, although its statistics is presented separately. In this case, like the UN, PRC is the sole representative of China, and Taiwan is considered a province of it (and probably Quemoy and Matsu are considered part of its Fujian Province, and Taiping part of Hainan). — Instantnood 11:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah, and didnt you insisted any topic other than the military and (what was the other one?) should be treated as thou they are seperate and distinct? If non-political issues are not the business of airlines and airports, may I know why some publications bother to present their statistics as such? The ICAO recognises that HK and Macau are parts of the PRC, and you say thats why they need that disclaimer. And you then saying that any other publication which fails to indicate as such as not recognising the SARs status of HK and Macau, and that they not part of the PRC?--Huaiwei 11:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Did I say the disclaimer is a must or else they will be failed to recognise Hong Kong and Macao as SARs, and as part of the PRC? ICAO membership is only open to sovereign States, and therefore they have to present China's (PRC's) statisitics in this way. The same would probably happen to other organisation open only to sovereign States. By the way would you mind telling how statistics of the Netherlands, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are presented? I don't have the physical journal on hand. — Instantnood 13:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - No you dont have to explicitly say it. You are implying it, because you are apparantly constantly bringing up examples whereby Hong Kong was treated as thou it is a country as some sort of justification that Hong Kong IS a country at the same level as the PRC (or...Mainland China?). You argue that this publication lists them this way because it is only open to "sovereign States"...then why do they need to bother having that special treatment (especially concerning Taiwan) if that was supposed to be "apparant" as you say?--Huaiwei 14:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - You might also be dissapointed to note that the lising I have is for countries with at least 15 million tonne kilometre, so I only saw one entry called "Netherlands". Whether it has Aruba or anything else down below, I wont know. ;) --Huaiwei 14:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have never attempted to imply that, and I must apologise if I made you confused. Hong Kong is part of the PRC, and it is not a sovereign State, and "sovereign State" ≠ "country" (get some political science textbooks in case you can't tell their difference). I guess ICAO's position is like that of the UN that Taiwan is considered a province of the PRC. — Instantnood 14:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - You guessed? Oh I tot you are dead sure. Are you sure the UN considers Taiwan a province of China? If you are agreeable to the idea that the two SARs are a part of the PRC, may I understand why do you see a need to disassociate as much as possible all links between the two SARs with the rest of China, when sub-categories, sub-sections, and disclaimers would have done the trick? And may I know if Hong Kong is a sovereign state (i dont care how its capitalised) or a country, for it to that much of a concern over my understanding of their definitions?--Huaiwei 16:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I am sure that the UN considers Taiwan a province of the PRC, and you can verify on that. I have never attempted to refute the fact that two SARs are part of the PRC. The meanings of "state" and "State" are not the same. If you don't care about that and don't know the different between the meanings of "sovereign State" and "country", there's little for us to further the discussion. — Insta ntnood 16:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- On "Taiwan Province of China": #1 #2 #3, here you go. — Instantnood 17:40, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah...and you are saying the UN actually considers Taiwan as province of China because of how it refers to that territory? I hope you realise the fine difference between the two?--Huaiwei 17:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The UN and ICAO list sovereign States, whereas lists on Wikipedia are usually lists of countries. — Insta ntnood 18:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
The issue here, Instantnood, is that you consistently DELETE such disclaimers on Wikipedia when those disclaimers give service to the reader that the SAR notifying them of the political context. This gives the presentation that the SAR are equals, and also by that exclusion, you rename the PRC to "mainland China" in order to avoid that same disclaimer. SchmuckyTheCat 14:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Did I ever delete such disclaimers on Wikipedia? — Instantnood 14:24, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - what? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_countries_by_coverage&curid=1442392&action=history SchmuckyTheCat 15:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That is not a list of sovereign States but a list of countries, and it is not the same sort of disclaimer that Huaiwei mentioned. — Instantnood 16:03, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - yes it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not. A hyperlink that explains the political situation isn't the same as a phrase in a printed publication? APPLES! ORANGES! SchmuckyTheCat 16:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. The historical colonial backgrounds of the two regions are enough ground to set them apart from PRC regardless of the current situation. Kowloonese 21:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. Hong Kong and Macau are different enough from Mainland China to be treated as countries in many fields. And this is in no way a statement about the legitimacy of PRC sovereignty over them. -- ran (talk) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Some sort of consensus

I think it's time to see if we can reach some sort of consensus, if any, over any of the seven statements above. Not all of them are particularly crucial so I'll summarize a few major points here:

China = PRC + ROC = Mainland + HK + Macau + Taiwan.
- Mostly disagree. Main complaint: this is not an NPOV representation. "China" is a term subject to POVs.
"China" can be used to refer to the PRC.
- Divided. I think we can conclude from this that both "China" and "PRC" are controversial concepts. ;)
"Taiwan" can be used to refer to the ROC.
- Mostly agree. With my added voice, I think we can safely say that it is mostly agree, not divided. Updated at time of my signature--Amerinese 22:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - No, it's not. Several of the "agrees" came in fact from anons, who do not get a vote. I would continue to call this divided. -- ran (talk) 22:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    - It is currently 5-3 agree by signed comments. It is divided, but I'm uncomfortable that the minority opinion is currently represented.--Amerinese 07:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Mainland China" is not a useful or neutral term.
- Mostly disagree.

-- ran (talk) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

The China article

I think the current characterization of "China" as a "geographical and cultural entity" is just as POV as a characterization of "China" as a state. In light of heavy disagreement with statement 1 above, I've done a tentative rewrite of the intro of the China article. Please tell me what you think:

China listen^ⓘ (Traditional Chinese: 中國, Simplified Chinese: 中国, Hanyu Pinyin: Zhōngguó, Wade-Giles: Chung-kuo) is a country located chiefly in continental East Asia with some outer territories in Central Asia and offshore islands in the Pacific Ocean. Due to ongoing political disputes, the nature and extent of "China" is under heavy dispute.

The People's Republic of China (PRC) was established in 1949 in Beijing, and since then has governed a large amount of territory known as "Mainland China". The People's Republic of China has also assumed control over Hong Kong in 1997 and Macau since 1999, which are not considered part of Mainland China. The (PRC) is commonly called simply "China", both by itself, and in Western usage.

At its founding, the People's Republic of China displaced the Republic of China (ROC), which had ruled China until then, and forced it to retreat to Taiwan, which it has ruled since then. The People's Republic of China does not consider the Republic of China to be legitimate; it refers to the Republic of China as the "Taiwan Authority", and considers Taiwan to be a territory that will eventually be reunified with China. On the other hand, the Republic of China has moved away from its former identity as the ruler of China, and increasingly characterizes itself as "Taiwan", which is the usage commonly adopted in the West.

As such, the term "China" is subject to heavy dispute. The country commonly referred to as "China" is described at People's Republic of China.

China is the world's oldest continuous civilization ... (same as before)

-- ran (talk) 01:45, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'll use the ^^to mark^^ things I'd insert:
territory ^^commonly called^^ Mainland China ^^by people local to the region^^.
At it's founding ----> After a long civil war...
has moved away from it's former identity as the ruler of---> hsa moved away from it's former claim to be ruler of
As such,^^claim to^^ the term "China"
Other wise, this does seem an improvement over what we have now. I've never considered that intro to be very disputed however.SchmuckyTheCat 02:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

territory ^^commonly called^^ Mainland China ^^by people local to the region^^. This is what I don't get... who doesn't call Mainland China by that name? -- ran (talk) 02:09, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

outside of Asia, or asians living outside of asia, nobody. actually, the japanese and pakis i work with never use it either. It's just obvious that there is Taiwan nd there is China. That either has aspirations on the other is just thought of as sour grapes. SchmuckyTheCat 06:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Try these. :-D

On "mainland China": [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]

On "Republic of China": [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] — Insta ntnood 07:38, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Please help me understand what you're trying to elucidate with these links.Mababa 05:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat said non-Asians or Asians not living in Asia don't use the terms "mainland China" and "Republic of China", and the google tests tell he's wrong. :-D — Insta ntnood 11:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat, where are you from? I am an Asian who has grown up in the U.S. and have always used the term Mainland China. The press here also uses the term all the time. For instance, these are some examples from the New York Times: [26]. --Umofomia 05:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried another test by excluding pages with reference to Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan. [27] 06:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this revision. I really really appreciate it. I have been thinking of ways to quibble the original statements. This proposed paragraph acknowledged the dispute over "China" and I think this treatment is much more neutral than previous one. All I have is praises and gratitude. Thank you. :)L&m3d 05:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to make a debate on this issue before. Nonetheless, I did not really push the debate hard enough. It is great to see a change of phrasing on this topic to make the article neutral and also make the article acknowledge the ambiguity of the definition under political tensions. This is a Brilliant edit!! Many thanks for the initiation for the NPOVing!!!Mababa 05:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your encouragement. ;) Here's an updated version:

China listen^ⓘ (Traditional Chinese: 中國, Simplified Chinese: 中国, Hanyu Pinyin: Zhōngguó, Wade-Giles: Chung-kuo) is a country located chiefly in continental East Asia with some outer territories in Central Asia and offshore islands in the Pacific Ocean. Due to ongoing political disputes, the nature and extent of "China" is under heavy dispute.

The People's Republic of China (PRC) was established in 1949 in Beijing following the Chinese Civil War, and since then has governed a large amount of territory known as "Mainland China". The People's Republic of China has also assumed control over Hong Kong in 1997 and Macau since 1999, which are not considered part of Mainland China. The (PRC) is commonly called simply "China", both by itself, and in Western usage.

At the end of the Chinese Civil War, the People's Republic of China displaced the Republic of China (ROC), which had ruled Mainland China until then, and forced it to retreat to Taiwan, which it has ruled since then. The People's Republic of China does not consider the Republic of China to be legitimate; it refers to the Republic of China as the "Taiwan Authority", and considers Taiwan to be a territory that will eventually be reunified with China. On the other hand, the Republic of China has moved away from its former claim as the ruler of China, and increasingly characterizes itself as "Taiwan", which is the usage commonly adopted in the West.

As such, the definition and usage of the term "China" is subject to heavy dispute. The country commonly referred to as "China" is described at People's Republic of China. This article only describes the Chinese civilization in general.

China is the world's oldest continuous civilization ... (same as before)

-- ran (talk) 17:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the disambiguation at the top can be changed to:

This article is on the Chinese civilization. For the modern country commonly referred to as "China", see People's Republic of China. For other meanings, see China (disambiguation).

-- ran (talk) 17:50, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Should have mentioned the ROC still controls some offshore islands in Fukien/Fujian, and islands in the South China Sea. Some historians believe that Quemoy and Matsu were left not "liberated" by the PLA, to make the remaining ROC ≠ Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I do not belive when people are looking for information on the Chinese civilization, they are interestd in these political nuances in general. It is true that people suggested that hypothesis; however, it is not very revelant to the Chinese civilization. That theory is more relevant in the article of the second Taiwan strait crisis, in my opinion.Mababa 02:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suggested to tell readers the ROC still controls some offshore islands in Fukien/Fujian and South China Sea in the article. What historians actually think about it, of course, will not be included. — Insta ntnood 11:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I thought those detail has already been presented in the bulk of the article. What exactly are you suggesting here?Mababa 04:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me see. Right. The article already tells "several outlying islands of Fujian.". Thanks for reminding. — Insta ntnood 06:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Views and alternative proposals

Instantnood's view

Everyone has already agreed upon that the term "China" refers to a geographical region, a vague concept that the limits vary to different people. What made "China" = "PRC" and "Taiwan" = "ROC" was a result of politics, and it is a POV. There was a long debate before the decision was made to place the articles about the governments at People's Republic of China and Republic of China, leaving China and Taiwan articles on geography. Using "China" as an encompassing term to refer to the "PRC" have been considered POV.

Either saying "Taiwan" as a geographical region is or is not part of the geographical region of "China" is, again, POV. It is also politics. On Wikipedia we have tried to be as NPOV as possible. However from culture point of view, Taiwanese culture, though with relatively greater influences from other sources, is part of Chinese culture. The Taiwanese or Min Nan language (or spoken variant) is a Han language, and Taiwanese cuisine falls into part of Chinese cuisines. History of Taiwan during the Koxinga era, between 1680 to 1895 (Qing rule) and from 1945 onwards (as a province of the ROC) is part of Chinese history.

The problem that many articles are linked to "China" meaning the PRC has temporarily been solved by the notice at the top of the China article, taking readers to the article People's Republic of China. In other cases, such as "..of China", are being solved by redirects or disambiguations (to "..of the PRC"/"..of mainland China").

Mainland China refers to PRC's territory excluding Hong Kong and Macao, with little dispute. The Mainland Affairs Commission of ROC's Executive Yuan does differentiate between mainland and Hong Kong + Macao. (see Talk:Mainland China#Scope of the term mainland China for details) It is neither an ROC- nor a Hong Kong-centric term, as reflected by the following materials produced by the PRC government.

Latest Satistics on SARS on Mainland China (15/04/2003) [28]
Education System in Mainland China [29]
Regulations of the State Council for Encouragement of Investment by Overseas Chinese and Compatriots from Hong Kong and Macao [30]
Reform gradualism and evolution of exchange rate regime in Mainland China (a speech delievered by the governor of the People's Bank of China) (doc format) [31]

When it has come to a decision among the terms "China", "PRC" or "mainland China"; "Taiwan" or "ROC, a simple rule of thumb, as I have mentioned here and elsewhere, is to depend on the scopes of the content of the articles or the categories. It doesn't matter whether it involves the government(s) or not.

An article about the entirety of territories under PRC's control, i.e. mainland China (22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions and 4 municipalities), Hong Kong and Macao included, should be titled ".. of the People's Republic of China". An article about mainland China, i.e. with Hong Kong and Macao excluded, should be titled ".. of mainland China".

An article about the entirety of territories under ROC's control, i.e. the island of Taiwan (including offshore islands such as Green Island and Orchid Island), Pescadores, Pratas, Matsu, Kinmen, Wuchiu, etc., should be titled ".. of the Republic of China". An article about Taiwan (i.e. Taiwan island plus Pescadores, with Pescadores, Pratas, Matsu, Kinmen, Wuchiu, etc. excluded) should be titled ".. of Taiwan".

Redirects and disambiguation are, very often, necessary to avoid making less well-informed readers in trouble.

Although "mainland China", "Taiwan", "Hong Kong" and "Macau" are not sovereign states, they are very often listed or categorised along with other countries, on lists of countries. The same have been done for dependent territories, and a handful of subnational entities (which are mostly French DOMs). — Insta ntnood 08:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

My response to a few of SchmuckyTheCat's comments

" 7. Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People's Republic of China. They are also special. They should not be categorized or treated as seperate from China. Articles about Hong Kong and Macau have the responsibility to state why and how they are different from the People's Republic of China, not vice versa. The differentness of HK and Macau shouldn't be used to rename other Chinese entities. "

He suggested Hong Kong and Macau are parts of the PRC, which is a status quo that everybody has to agreed wtih. But I guess she/he is referring to the differences between Hong Kong and Macau, and mainland China, rather than Hong Kong and Macau, and PRC.

" 4. The primary articles on China and the People's Republic of China should mention that neither "China" nor the PRC is homogenous in laws, language, custom, etc. The extremely loose federated system for provincial control in the PRC allows a wide variety of systems to be practiced. Individual articles should detail how things are different. "

From a political science point of view, the PRC is not a loose federation, but a unitary State. Typical example of federations include Switzerland, Germany, Canada and the United States.

" My opinion on statement 2. ... First, Wikipedia recognizes the status quo to the political situation. The status quo is that Taiwan does not control the geographical entity called China. It is NPOV to allow China to refer to the PRC in most contexts. ... Fourth, we must take into account the intention of the thousands of other articles that sloppily link to "China". We aren't giving the PRC exclusive rights to the name China, but we are acknowleding and accomodating common use. "

Like what I have already mentioned, it is a POV to say either "Taiwan" is or is not part of "China" the geographical region.

The common use can be solved by redirects and disambiguations, as well as by the notices at the top of articles.

" My opinion on Statement 3. Republic of China is what the government there prefers. We should respect that. However, insisting that "Republic of China" is more accurate or less POV than Taiwan is as POV as anything else. Some Taiwanese prefer Taiwan, some prefer ROC, some probably prefer Formosa or Chinese Taipei. The meaning of Taiwan geographically is one thing, but in our global culture, the word "Taiwan" has expanded to mean the political entity, the language, and the unique culture that has sprung up there. We should encourage broad and encompassing terms. We don't need to rename articles (unless there is a naming conflict, of course) if we can have more explanatory text in the articles. "

Simple examples, History of Taiwan, Taiwanese cuisine or Culture of Taiwan has nothing to do with Quemoy (Kinmen) and Matsu. Differentiating "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" has the merit of solving many problems in proper titling, to tell the scope of the content of articles and categories.

" My opinion on statement 4, 5, 6. This is a huge problem. Mainland China is being used as a substitute, and using the current naming conventions to justify it, for the People's Republic of China. This is horribly POV for Taiwan and HK centric articles (and wiki users) to be defining the PRC with such a term. The term defines what mainland China is not, but can't define what it is because what it is is context dependent. From Taiwan, mainland China is every part of China that isn't Taiwan. From Hong Kong, mainland China is all of China except the SAR. "

See the materials by the PRC that I have quoted above. "Mainland China" is not an ROC- or Hong Kong-centric term. The ROC does differentiate between Hong Kong and Macau from the mainland. In Hong Kong and Macau the term "mainland China" does not cover ROC's territory.

"Mainland China" is not used as a substitute to "PRC". Its use depends on situation, and the scope of the content of an article or a category. Saying some users are using it as a substitute reveals that one is not well-informed with the issue. — Insta ntnood 08:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

My position

I agree with the current set of naming conventions. If modification is necessary, I would agree with slight clarifications, rather than changing the meanings. — Insta ntnood 08:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: History of Taiwan during the Koxinga era is diputable out side of the Chinese history. It is also a POV to call Taiwan not to be a sovereignty state but is at the level of the HK, Macuo. Other than that , I do not have much opinion. I also appreciate your thoughtful note separating ROC from Taiwan. :) Mababa 05:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are quite right. It was part of Taiwanese history. It was the history of Han settlers on Taiwan. But saying it's Chinese history could be disputable.

The status quo is that Taiwan is not a sovereign State, but a main part of territories administered by the ROC, which is a regime/government. Thanks for your appreciation. It has had more than enough battles around. — Insta ntnood 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Penwhale's Thoughts

I'll skip the quoting part, since I don't want to clutter the discussion/idea flows.

Regarding statement #1, I hesitantly stay neutral on the geographical half, and needs to comment on the historical half. Geographically, China would not include Taiwan. Historically, yes, you can say Chinese history, but that doesn't cover those that lived in Taiwan originally. (You know, American History don't exactly cover Native Americans)

Regarding statement #2, it is true that it's acceptable but not preferred, but we still have to follow a guideline. If something needs to be renamed, it should. Same with #3.

Regarding statement #4, correctly placing the articles could prevent the mix-up.

Regarding statement #5, I would -not- make such a section. If I do, it would be to inform that PRC contains mainland China as well as the two SARs.

Regarding statement #6, "mainland China" is considered a geographical location, which is PRC subtracting Tibet, HK, and Macau. I would maintain this view, like a number of people have insisted.

Regarding statement #7, yes. The problem is that I'd rather be exact on what I'm saying. If it's, say, culture, then "mainland China" -might- suffice. Like I pointed out right above, "mainland China is a geographical locale, and should be kept where applicable. Penwhale 06:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If we shelf anything political aside, Taiwan could be geographically part of China as Madagascar to Africa, or Tasmania to Australia do. However I believe Wikipedia has to be neutral. In the 17th century nobody would say Ryukyu Islands are geographically part of Japan, but now very few object.

Tibet is conventionally part of "mainland China", but not part of "China Proper". — Insta ntnood 12:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

You're raising of the issue of Tibet is exactly why the term mainland China shouldn't be used. SchmuckyTheCat 19:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- ~~Problem with that is, Tibet, in general, is not cosidered a part of "mainland China". I wouldn't say I'm going to mainland China if I'm going to Tibet. just my thoughts.~~ Ok, I'm just gonan agree with what Instanood said right above us and leave it like that. Penwhale 23:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, a very basic problem is that very few people go to Tibet. It would be something exciting to tell people around that you've been there, but not anywhere else. :-D — Insta ntnood 07:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

At present this convention breaches the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) and this is unacceptable. It says that Wikipedia treats Taiwan as a sovereign state, and then implies that the sovereign state should be called "Republic of China". First, as a straightforward matter of fact, Taiwan is not a sovereign state - and nobody recognises it as such. Wikipedia should report, not invent a fiction here.

I have to strongly object to saying that no one recognizes Taiwan. That's just false and I doubt that you really believe that, which just angers me that you would say something you know is false. See comment posted at bottom about list of embassies around the world.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, the term "Republic of China" is not only confusing, but is also only a term used by the Taiwanese. The Chinese government in Beijing has made it clear that it views Taiwan to be a renegate province. It has recently passed an anti-secession law, is planning military rehearsals on an invasion of Taiwan with Russia, and does not recognise that there is such a thing as the "Republic of China". We really can't take the Taiwanese side on this. Especially as there is no need as everybody in real life appears willing to use the term "Taiwan" instead.

Are you going to buy the PRC party line or not? PRC says it is not planning invasion exercises.

The anti-seccession law is opposed by major powers of the world, most importantly, the United States. So let's not say that that law has any real meaning on the international level.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I therefore propose that we note the political situation and comment that Wikipedia takes no side in this dispute. Then that we prefer the term "Taiwan" as all sides of the dispute are ok with using that term - which seems to be the best approach to getting NPOV, jguk 12:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is a sovereign state currently called ROC (Taiwan). It may or may not be equivalent to ROC (NPOV means representing both views, not throwing away the ones you don't like).

Strongly disagree. Even if RoC isn't a sovereign state, it existed since 1912, it hasn't been removed from the planet of earth. You still need to note their existence. Penwhale 12:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's not call either of them sovereign States. They are two regimes, and technically they are still at war, as there was neither armistice nor cease fire agreement.

Do you really believe they are at war? America hasn't declared war since Korean War and there was Vietnam, two Gulf Wars, many smaller wars. Think about it like this. If Taiwan and China went to war tomorrow, would historians talk about a new war or a 60 year old war? I'm sure there's a linkage, but geez, let's not give so much authority to actual declarations. For something like war, actions speak loud and clear.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Republic of China has full diplomatic relations with 25 sovereign States (see Foreign relations of the Republic of China). The others usually has at least some form of contacts with the Taipei government. Taipei Representive Offices all around the world function as de facto embassies or consulates.

The territories that the ROC administers = Taiwan plus something, i.e. the ROC ≠ Taiwan. (and those something are not covered by the Taiwan Relations Act.) — Insta ntnood 12:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

you don't support calling the PRC sovereign? (added by SchmuckyTheCat at 13:16, Mar 19, 2005)

As pointed out before, the term "Taiwan" is far from being NPOV in political discussions. Much of the political debate is precisely about whether "ROC"="Taiwan". Currently all sides agree that this equality does not hold. It's only the Western media that are being sloppy here. --MarkSweep 21:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also Strongly disagree First and foremost, the Taiwan page is currently slanted towards China's view (PRC view), where Taiwan is simply an island whose authority is under dispute. Although China considers Taiwan to be a rogue territory, Taiwan has its own currency, flag, Olympic team, embasies in foreign countries, delegates to the World Trade Organization, military, etc. Taiwan's statistics are calculated separately from China, including but not limited to: population data, economic data as in GDP, demographic data, etc. CIA factbook even goes further and lists Taiwan as a separate country altogether. I agree that the dispute should be included somewhere in the page, but having Taiwan listed as an island with references to both PRC and ROC causes confusion. Taiwan should be referred to simply as "Taiwan", not "Taiwan the geographical location please see ROC". That is absurd. (by 205.174.8.4 at 21:56, Mar 22, 2005)

Hey wait. Those are ROC statistics, not statistics on Taiwan. Taiwan ≠ ROC even to the government in Taipei. Please sign your comment. — Insta ntnood 09:38, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, those are TAIWAN statistics. See CIA factbook. Pull up a country list and then click on the country called Tawian, and you will see those statistics.

No. They are ROC statistics. For political reasons the United States can't use ROC, and therefore they have to use "Taiwan" in its place. — Insta ntnood 16:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

You're sort of agreeing to DISAGREE. If using ROC stems from a slanted POV, then "Taiwan would be more NPOV".

no, the US has to follow the PRC's POV since it recognized the people's republic. This sacrifices accuracy, since the factbook states Taiwan's "official name" as "none". --Ji ang 02:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me remind readers and other contributers that the United States has a One-China policy defined by itself, not PRC. The definition of this policy adopted by the US overlaps the PRC's policy but the two are not exactly the same. This nuance is discernable and is something has to be pointed out. The United States is not a dependency of the PRC and does not follow PRC's policy. It is not precise to state "the US has to follow the PRC's POV" as Jiang just phrased.--Mababa 02:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to also point out that the United States statement when it reestablished diplomatic relations with China is: "The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." Read carefully. It says, PRC has a view and we acknowledge it. We don't agree, we don't disagree, we don't say anything. This is a major backing off from the meeting from Nixon's visit prior to the statment made at the time of reestablishing diplomatic relations. George Bush has said he will do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan. Do you think US accepts China's POV? So, again, Jiang, you can't pass off China's POV as the US's.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We clearly stated that Taiwan is governmened by a political entity called the Republic of China. This is not the PRC's POV, which states that the ROC no longer exists. Instead, we've portrayed the de facto situation and tried to bring in the different viewpoints. It is the Republic of China that has its own currency, flag, Olympic team, embassies in foreign countries, delegates to the World Trade Organization, military, etc. The flag of the Republic of China is being used. Extreme supporters of independence would like to dispute the fact that it is the flag of Taiwan. The currency is issued by the Central Bank of China, a corporation owned by the ROC government. It is obviously controversial to equate the ROC with Taiwan. --Ji ang 02:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One thing I see Jiang arguing that is really fallacious is that recognizing ROC is not the PRC's POV so it must be NPOV. Jiang, kindly review false dilemma to clear up the confusion. And the other thing that he does a lot of is he is interested in only the signs--the flags, the names, the pictures on the currency. If you have even the most naive intuitive theory of language, you recognize there are two things--there are tokens and there are objects that those tokens refer to. You cannot outright say the ROC continues to exist just because something today bears its name. You need to establish that there's a material unity. Native democracy versus authoritarian government run by mainlanders versus authoritarian government on China with lots of warlords and wars with both CCP and Japan? What's the same about them?--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing my position on this. I won't bother trying to explain how your criteria does not work. Under NPOV guidelines, wikipedia does not take a stance. There's no need to try to persuade us into taking one. If a prominent position is not represented in an article, then add. Do make sure it is still NPOV (ie attributed and qualified with the attributed positions of all those involved). --Ji ang 10:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the NPOV lecture buddy, I didn't know what this discussion was about. We are deciding here what is NPOV so you can't just keep referring to NPOV. There are many opinions about what NPOV means for the Taiwan articles. And you should also respond to my arguments. Just saying, I won't bother is condescending, rude, and unproductive. You've done nothing to prove your point.--160.39.195.88 21:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to define who is extreme and who is not. For example, in many Taiwanese's opinion, they would define the Chinese nationalism supporters to be more extreme. I really wish other Wikipedians can avoid using judgemental and denegrading words like this. It has been frustrating to see so many Wikipedians carry this opionated position in this talk page. That being said, it IS controversial to equate the two and I believe that we should find a neutral way to present this prevalent opinion without stating this position as truth.--Mababa 02:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Extremism can be visualized on a spectrum. We have strongly unificationist (ie reunify immediately) on one end and strongly independencist (ie declare independence immediately) on the other. These encase the center (ie uphold the status quo) so as the outer edges of the spectrum, they are by definition extremes. Chen Shui-bian, though he leans more towards independence, he is not as extreme as LTH because unlike Lee, he is promoting the status quo and promising not to declare independence. I don't think this is hard to dispute. --Ji ang 05:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Extremism for sure is definitely not a neutral and flattering vocabulary. I don't think this is hard to dispute, either. If labeling politicians like Lee as extremists is tolerated in Wikipedia, then we should also make an equal effort actively labeling Chinese Unification and Chinese nationalism supporters (either on PRC or ROC) as extermists as well. Can we start to call unification supporters as China Fighters or Unification Fighters? People on both ends of the spectrum are probably either more liberal or conservative, but calling them extremists would be judgemental in my opinion. I was just thinking perhaps we should have a Chinese Naming convention on defining extremism to make sure that only people supporting status quo are not called extremist.Mababa 06:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think both independence and unificationist can be called extremists, at least from what I gather in the papers, like what they say about 急統/急獨 Ware ware 07:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you asked the question, what if Taiwan was guaranteed peace after declaring independence, how many people would support, you would have a great majority of Taiwanese saying yes. Now putting a gun to their heads (100 new missiles each year, advanced weapons that the EU desparately wants to sell to China), many Taiwanese, for practical purposes, do not want to declare independence openly. This is all easily obtained knowledge and it is POV to call Taiwanese that want to declare independence extreme.--160.39.195.88 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We're not calling these people "extremists" per se. It would be the same if we called them "more enthusiastic supporters". I'm trying to characterize their degree of support, which is obviously more drastic. How would you do it? And yes, people on the other end count too. --Ji ang 10:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If we are not calling these people "extremists" per se, then I suggest we stop describing them as extreme Taiwan independence supporters. Say if some students search Wikipedia for study, they may be mislead to accept that these people would resort to extreme and violent measure for political goals. In fact, only one pro-unification group, 愛國同心會, in Taiwan has a history of resorting to violence and thus qualifies as extremists. I think if we call them a portion of Taiwan independence supporters would be better and neutral. Or perhaps a fraction would do as well. Or perhaps you would have a better way to describe different branches in a political spectrum. These political activists are civiled and have a goal with their legal/historical basis to support their activity. They deserve a better title than extremist or extreme Taiwan independence supporters. Meanwhile, 急統/急獨 is an unfair label created by the mass media. Do those so call 急獨 people have a trait of violence? Or are they really brainless and thus would hastly declare independence? There are totally 15~20% of Taiwanese would choose immediately declare independence; are they all fanatic violent gansters who would engage into street fights with the government?--Mababa 03:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually Jiang, WTO's directory lists that the delegates are from "Taiwan", not "ROC". Additionally, the currency for Taiwan used internationally is Taiwan Dollar (TWD), and not ROC Dollar. Please get your facts straight before relaying incorrect information.

Please look up its full title. It's Taiwan plus something, and two of those three something are not part of Taiwan. Quemoy and Matsu used to have their own currencies until recently (and Tachen between 1949 to 1955). The Taiwan Relations Act of the US does not apply to Quemoy and Matsu, which are under ROC's administration. The ROC offices in the US are Taipei Representative Offices, instead of embassies and consulates-general. — Insta ntnood 17:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, a list of Tawianese embassies can be found here http://www.embassiesabroad.com/embassy.cfm?embassy=abroad&countryID=86 -anon

Under PRC pressure, the title is "Special Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, and Matsu". Why would adding "Penghu, Quemoy, and Matsu" be necessary? --Ji ang 10:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should be "Separate Customs Territory". :-D — Insta ntnood 12:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that jguk has put this issue forward to Wikipedia:Village pump. — Insta ntnood 13:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Due to these objections, I have reworded the text while keeping the existing policy in tact. Statements such as "Wikipedia treats..." and "Wikipedia is silent..." aren't really helpful here as we are trying to direct editors on what terms to use. This is more of a guide than a case study of community practices. Please comment on any problems with the changes.--Ji ang 09:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan Island vs Taiwan

Is the word "Taiwan" politically charged? Using that word seems to be one of the few things both sides agree on, jguk 10:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That depends on the context. "Taiwan" as a geographical term (as opposed to, say, "Formosa") is fine and pretty much unobjectionable. As a political term (as opposed to "ROC") it's often problematic, strongly POV, or flat out wrong (e.g. "The President of Taiwan" is grossly misleading/POV). --MarkSweep 19:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The term itself isnt charged, but using it syonymously with the Republic of China is: [32] [33]. --Ji ang 01:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Chinese media is notoriously propagandistic, something which Taiwanese media, though it often leans blue or green, is not known for. Second, the credibility on the PRC side is smashed by the second article when the PRC claims that everyone should go back to the 1992 consensus but former President Lee says there was no consensus. Interesting right?--160.39.195.88 21:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please stop making political statements. It's not helping. The PRC has expressed an opinion and we must represent it. There's no use telling them their argument is flawed. Wrong website to do this--Ji ang 23:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. You need to look for consistency because you can't factually represent contradictory views in a SINGLE POV. It makes no sense.--160.39.195.88 18:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

is there still a npov dispute here? the text has since been edited--Ji ang 14:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think there is still an issue, yes.

What do you mean by "synonymously" with the "Republic of China"? Do you mean "Republic of China" as a regime led out of Taipei, or as the areas de facto under the control of Taipei? As far as the latter is concerned, both Taipei and Beijing seem happy to use "Taiwan" as an informal shorthand for all areas currently under control of Taipei - although in formal contexts they use Taiwan just to mean the island and the small islands that are very very close to Taiwan, jguk 09:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes!!! Taiwan defined as only the main island is only a usage I have found on Wikipedia and no where else. Taiwanese independence supporters are cited as saying that Taiwan is not equivalent to the ROC, but what they really mean is that Taiwan, the area controlled by the ROC exists, but a new government needs to be declared. If we take ROC as the name of the government, and Taiwan as the name of the place/cultural/people entity, why is it limited to the one island? Then what is the name of the place the ROC governs? I don't see the CHina article being split into only province articles.--160.39.195.88 10:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I mean the former. "Republic of China" should not be used to describe a geographical or cultural entity. It should be used to describe the political entity. The geographical or cultural entity is best referred to as "Taiwan" while the political entity is best referred to as "Republic of China". There are clearly instances where one should be preferred over the other. --Ji ang 10:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, then why do you think that the Taiwan article should be about the island of Taiwan?--160.39.195.88 21:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are some places administered by the ROC government not part of Taiwan, and were not colonised by Japan. These islands are on the Fujian coast, or in the South China Sea. Independence supporters do not consider these places as part of the independent Taiwan they advocate. — Insta ntnood 12:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood, substantiate your claim. The people living on those islands do not want to return to China, though it is true that in the past, independence supporters thought that they could trade those islands in return for guarantees of peace. But they don't want to go back.

In any case, today those islands are part of Taiwan, and we do not need to worry about redefining words in preparation for what independence supporters advocate.--160.39.195.88 21:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How are they part of Taiwan? They are neither part of the province (politically) nor part of the island (geographically) of Taiwan. --Ji ang 23:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What fallacious thinking!!! We're arguing about what Taiwan means here and you are using the definition that you like to prove that those islands are not a part of Taiwan! So funny. Those islands are today a part of Taiwan although historically they were not. Taipei city isn't a part of the province either. Do you want to exclude it? What else are you going to call the geographical area of the ROC? Don't give me equivalence arguments (i.e. Taiwan is not equal to the ROC acoording to blah blah blah) because they are not talking about geographical and political equivalence. They are talking about the legitimacy of the ROC which is a totally separate question.--160.39.195.88 18:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those islands were never colonised by Japan. The culture there is not the same as on Taiwan. Although people on those islands don't want communist rule by the PRC, they don't want to be part of an independence Taiwan either, and this is reflected by DPP's and TSU's thin support from people from these islands. — Insta ntnood 22:03, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

They don't necessarily want to declare independence publicly. The KMT's most important position is not to upset the status quo, which means preserving actual independence without making moves towards formal independence. You do not have a good understanding of Taiwanese politics. Support for pan-blue has nothing to do with wanting to unify with China. There is the same support for pan-blue in Taipei. What do you say to that? Exclude Taipei from Taiwan?--160.39.195.88 18:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definitions to help clear up the arguments (though unfortunately we still might not reach a consensus)--160.39.195.88 10:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) I challenge anyone that has said Taiwan does not equal ROC or who has said Taiwan does equal ROC to define what they mean by equals. Please define below.

2) I challenge people that claim Taiwan is an island to cite usage and explain what word we should use for the area controlled by the ROC as a whole. At the very least, what is the reason that Taiwan doesn't also mean Penghu? Obviously your definition for Taiwan in 2) better work for your use of it in 1).

1) I don;t get your question. Please rephrase.

2) "current jurisdiction of the Republic of China" "area administered/governed/controlled by the Republic of China" "Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, and Matsu" "Taiwan Province, Taipei City, Kaohsiung City, and Kinmen and Lienchiang counties of Fu-chien Province" Are you denying that Taiwan is an island? Taiwan can include Penghu if we define it by the province. In many contexts, such as the Cairo Declaration, it doesnt. We have to stick to something that's NPOV. --Ji ang 15:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For 1), I mean that instead of saying Taiwan equals the Republic of China, spell out what you mean. For example, do you mean that the government of Taiwan is equal to the government called Republic of China? What is being made equivalent and what is being denied equivalence? --160.39.195.88 21:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ROC it is agreed is the name of the government. For 2), I want to know what you call the lands of the ROC if you don't call it Taiwan. In Chinese: Taiwan Island is called Taiwan Island, not Taiwan, and Taiwan Province is called Taiwan Province, not Taiwan. --160.39.195.88 21:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Chinese, "Taiwan" is used to refer to the island (plus its affiated islands), or rarely to the province. It is also used as a shorthand, when people don't care about, and in occassions that it's not necessary to think about, Quemoy and Matsu. — Insta ntnood 22:03, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Cairo is an old document. We are talking about current usage.--160.39.195.88 21:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By wikipedia convention: The "Republic of China" refers the the polity that governs Taiwan and is commonly known by it. "Taiwan" refers to the cultural and geographical entity. We use "Republic of China" when referring to the government, but "Taiwan" when referring to the land and people. --Ji ang 23:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But we don't use "Taiwan" to refer to people from Quemoy and Matsu. — Insta ntnood 12:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I belive the Instantnood misunderstood the core of the debate. The western usage refering Taiwan as a political entity would actually include those tiny islands. What 160.39.195.88 challenged is the consensus which Jiang just cited. It is clear that the unsigned Cairo press communique refered to a geographical territory; I do not belive anyone would be confused. The question is whether we should expand the definition of "Taiwan" into a term refering to a polity as the western mass media do, in order to obtain a NPOV.Mababa 02:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True. But the term "Taiwan" does not actually cover those islands. Western media has to avoid using "ROC", and therefore they have no other better choice but to expand the coverage of the word "Taiwan". In fact, the Taiwan Relations Act does not cover those islands, well, who cares anyways? — Insta ntnood 11:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying "who cares"? You mean: who cares about the island of Qingmoy and Matsu just like who cares about HK anyway? or you mean who cares about Taiwan just like who cares about HK anyway? Is it because you do not care at all or you think these entities do not deserve to be cared? It is also strange to say that the western media are forced to use the term Taiwan as if they would prefer not to. Where is your evidence for CNN or BBC news being forced? I would love to see that? Can it simply be that they choose to use the word because it is a state mainly located on that island and thus serves the purpose to call the government?Mababa 04:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Instantnood. I have to confess that your robotical response by repeating your previous answer is really disturbing and would definately not help the discussion move forward. If next time you keep on this habit, I will have to response you in the same way you response me.Mababa 05:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I mean.. people using "Taiwan" in place of "Republic of China" do not care about if there is any islands administered by the ROC not part of Taiwan. Western media uses (did I say "forced" by the way?) "Taiwan" in place of "Republic of China" because the governments use it in this way, and average consumers of the present-day only know about Taiwan but not ROC. — Insta ntnood 06:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

(response to Mababa's comment at 05:23, 29 Mar 2005) I must say that Instantnoods' usage of words "who cares" just speaks volumes on how dismissive he is in areas he doesnt happen to share much passion about, yet reacts in overwelming emotion and resolve in all issues directly relevant to his hometown. If I were to be a Taiwanese, I would be absolutely offended. Not a good reflection for a wikipedian who should be placing knowledge over personal interests.--Huaiwei 11:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was saying the fact that many proponents of using "Taiwan" instead of "ROC" do not care the non-Taiwan parts of the territories administered by the ROC, namely Quemoy, Wuchiu, Matsu, Taiping, etc. It has nothing to do with where I come from. I would have said the same thing even if I were from Taiwan, or from Quemoy, given the fact. — Insta ntnood 16:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

To Instantnood: Uncle Ed is right about #Courtesy; staying calm would have served your argument better. These words were indeed inappropriate and if you want to hear my advice – I'd simply apologize.

To Mababa and Huaiwei: Concluding from Instantnood's words that he wants to diminish non-Taiwan parts of ROC is absurd. His argument throughout this discussion is consistently the opposite – that we should use "ROC" to include non-Taiwan parts. — Sebastian (留言) 19:05, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Sebastian: I have two versions of response. Please choose the one you like.

Instantnood-like version: True. But my initial reply was not actually pertinent toward those islands. I believe it is already clear that I was responding toward his dismissive attitude. In fact, it is more absurd to think I have reached your so-called far-fetched conclusion. But who cares anyways?--Mababa 01:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ordinary person with more politeness: Thank you for your comment. However, I think I was clearly addressing to his lack of ingeniousity in his response. I hope that I did not leave anyone the wrong impression that I have drawn the absurd conclusion as your suggested.--Mababa 01:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Sebatian, no not really. I am disturbed by his nonchalant attitude, which is at odds with his enthusiastic enforcement of conventions relevant to this issue. I am not making any conclusions on, not disturbed by, his "agendas", if any.--Huaiwei 09:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1)For me, "Taiwan" is the island unless it is in context of politics, then it becomes ROC. 2)Taiwan does not necessarily include/exclude the island. There currently isn't a term that collectively name the territories... The best I can come up with is "territories currently controled by the ROC government." Penwhale 10:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chinese puzzle

I don't understand any of this. I bet it's a smokescreen by various parties to assert:

that the Communist government is the true and rightful goverment of both the mainland and Taiwan; or,
that the ROC is the true, etc. gov't of mainland and Taiwan (or at least just of Taiwan).

Neither of the above is any business of Wikipedia. Our mission is merely to describe the conflict fairly.

It is NOT the job of Wikipedia to decide which side is right, or to formulate a compromise between the sides. All we need to do is outline each side's position and summarize their arguments.

And if a particular usage in English of any term is unambiguous and popular, we should adhere to it.

When people use the following terms, what do they mean by them?

Mainland China - either PRC proper, or PRC + Hong Kong, etc. (but not Taiwan)
China - variously: PRC as opposed to ROC (but this is awkward); or "all parts of China", i.e., PRC + ROC
Taiwan - the island also called Formosa; or ROC (better to use Formosa when discussing geography, and ROC when discussing politics)
ROC - Should be obvious: the de facto gov't on Formosa
PRC - Should be obvious: the gov't on the mainland

Wikipedia should not try to settle:

Is the PRC the gov't of mainland + Formosa? (Just say that they claim all the land?
Is the ROC a legitimate gov't? (Just say that claim to be + list the handful of countries that recognize that claim)

Please, let's not use naming conventions as a proxy for asserting our own cherished viewpoints. That's not what we're here for, is it? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:52, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

(Schmucky, don't be a prick, okay? Your assertion above -"China" in general refers to the anything chinese. It is also understood as a general term to refer to the PRC and it's possessions. - is an attempt to get Wikipedia to endorse the pro-PRC point of view. As someone who reads widely in English publications, I assure you that (a) China in general does refen to anything Chinese, but (b) it is only understood by pro-PRC advocates as "referring to the PRC and its possessions".

(The campaign to make "China" mean PRC and possessions in particular, is something we should write about - not necessarily something we should support. Our policy is only use words the way most English speakers use them. As long as the controversy rages, we should not pick sides, or even appear to pick sides. This is not something to vote on: it's already policy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for joining Uncle Ed. What makes the issue complicated is that territories currently administered by the ROC = Taiwan/Formosa plus something, a fact which many fail to recognise and accept. And at the same time "mainland China" is resisted by some users to refer to the PRC with Hong Kong and Macao excluded, as they think this would make the PRC be "denied from using its own title". — Insta ntnood 18:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who is trying to adhere to NPOV policy while writing Wikipedia articles, has an easy task. Just say "ROC-administered territories". Even the staunchest pro-PRC advocate will concede the neutrality of that formulation. (Except for diplomats, etc. who are not trying to describe the situation neutrally, of course. But they are not invited to contribute to Wikipedia articles. We all agree to leave our own agendas at the door; that is the price of admission.)

Only POV pushers (i.e., people who aren't interested in NPOV) would insist that all occurrences of "mainland China" reflect their desired usage. This issue has been discussed in sufficient detail to clarify the policy that Wikipedia takes no stand on the PRC/ROC controversy. No article that refers to "mainland China" constitutes an endorsement of any POV about the extent of the PRC's legitimate sovereignty.

How else can we talk about Hong Kong's relationship to its new possessor, now that Great Britain has ceded its sovereignty? We have to use some terms. If a given passage is unclear, we can add a sentence (or even an entire paragraph, if necessary) clarifying things.

This idea that Wikipedia must use only politically correct terminology is NOT policy. "Correct" and "objective" and "neutral" are three distince concepts. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I could agree with "ROC-administered territories" in titles (e.g. economy) if nobody considers it clumsy, and that's the most objective way to describe it.

For Hong Kong, mainland China is a term used by the Hong Kong Government and the authorities in the mainland to refer to PRC-administered territories minus Hong Kong and Macao. In Hong Kong's laws "the mainland of China" is used. Even the Mainland Affairs Council of the Executive Yuan of the ROC uses the term "mainland" in similar ways. If some terms is necessary when the content of a page covers only PRC-administered territories minus Hong Kong and Macao, "mainland China" is the term to be used. — Insta ntnood 18:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly the crux of what is wrong with the term. You are using "mainland China" as a defining term. It should be used in SAR articles to refer to the mainland, not in titles and categories ABOUT the PRC. By being so belligerent about "but that doesn't cover the SAR situation" - which is the case in all cases we've encountered - means you are replacing either "China" or the "People's Republic of China" with that term. That is unacceptable. It's a differentiating term, and a colloquialism, used when necessary. It's not used, as a definititive title, simply because of the SAR. SchmuckyTheCat 22:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. During the SARS pandemic press releases of the mainland authorities (e.g. Ministry of Health, PRC's mission in Geneva [34]) gave latest figures of "mainland China", with "mainland China" as the titles of the press releases. The same applies when they talk about their economy. It's politically incorrect to say "China" or "PRC" when they are in fact talking about mainland China only. — Insta ntnood 06:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

bullshit. and let me clear my throat, BULLSHIT! if you don't understand that the PRC is free to use a differentiating term when necessary, and them doing that is not deciding to rename their country, then I just don't care to pretend to be nice to you anymore. find all the uses that you want, 95% of the usage of the term "China" here on wikipedia is referring to the PRC and if you think that is politically incorrect, to refer to the country by the name that it is, you are insane. SchmuckyTheCat 06:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we are talking about the economy, we are referring to the economy of mainland China, not the economy of the entirety of the PRC the sovereign State. I have never tried to use "mainland China" in the place of "China" or "PRC" to refer to, and to rename, the sovereign State. — Insta ntnood 13:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, using "China" or "PRC" in place of "mainland China" is improper. — Insta ntnood 13:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Additional information: Try this google search. "mainland China" -"Hong Kong" -"Macau" -"Macao" -"Taiwan" site:gov.cn. This article writes " communications between mainland China and the foreign countries ", and this piece of press release on trade is interesting too (" trade of goods between mainland China and Denmark reached "). — Insta ntnood 14:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

And this article on Finnair website writes " The airport has excellent connections to other parts of mainland China as well as Hong Kong and Macao. ". — Insta ntnood 15:35, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh? I would love to see how you substaintiate the claim that "using "China" or "PRC" in place of "mainland China" is improper." There is an overwelmingly high tendency of using either terms to refer to "mainland China" in the World today, which hardly makes it "improper". On the other hand, is it proper to use the term "mainland China" to refer to "China" or the "PRC"? "Mainland China" is merely a term to refer to "the other" piece of land, be it from the Taiwan, HK or Macau point of view. It is stil very much debatable if the term is accepted as an official term in reference to the PRC, even if it actually excludes reference of the two SARs. Repeatedly showing that link of one PRC release using the term "mainland China" does not make a difference here.--Huaiwei 20:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any valid reason why the title of an encyclopædic article can't be more accurate, to avoid ambiguity and political incorrectness. — Insta ntnood 08:25, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Can I then question if it is not possible to write an article which conforms to its title? Quite a number of you have editing pages to the point that they have slowly changed in scope, before turning it into an excuse for a renaming exercise. Fair? Either way, it is a POV which you refuse to acknowledge. My POV, is that the term "PRC" should not be removed in favour of the term "Mainland China", because of reasons including:

the first term is a more officially recognised term to refer to a country, the second term enjoys far less official standing. It remains a unofficial term which has increasingly been used to refer to a geographical entity in an official setting, either due to a refusal in refering to the Beijing government (esp from the Taiwanese side, which ironically, dosent make it a NPOV term as what some likes to think it is), or simply as a convenient reference to the "rest of China" as per the SARs' POV.
Usage of the term "XXX of mainland China", although not controversial in itself, becomes an issue for concern once it is classified as a "national economy". Same with all other pages classified by country. Despite how some of you insist on dismissing this as trivial, it is actually a strong reference to refer to each of these entities as "countries" in the interpretation of the term "country" most familiar to many. This is not NPOV.
Familiarity amongst most users in this site is not with the term mainland China, but with the other formats. How many would actually type "Economy of mainland China" instead of the other possible titles? They even have to make sure they do not type "Economy of Mainland China"!

So may I know the reasons behind insisting that the term mainland China should be used? That the term is more nuetral is already under attack. I would like to hear much better reasoning in outlawing the use of a proper term to refer to a country.--Huaiwei 11:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to compare the official standing of the terms "PRC" and "mainland China" in this way. They do not refer to the same thing. The term "mainland China" does posess official standing, as I have mentioned before. Using the term "mainland China" in titles, and categorising such articles into country or nation categories does not make "mainland China" becoming a sovereign State. Familiarity can be easily solved by disambiguations and redirects. The actual title should be reflective to the content. — Insta ntnood 16:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Courtesy

Let's all avoid hostility, profanity and personal remarks, such as:

are insane
bull****
pretend to be nice to you anymore
you don't understand
you're wrong

It's better to discuss ideas, not people. Let's focus on the articles. This is a difficult subject, let's work together. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle Ed. :-) — Insta ntnood 14:32, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. But actually, I found it quite convenient. The big bold statements in strong language visualize motivational forces, pointing right to the heart of strong POV. — Sebastian (留言) 08:57, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

China?

The idea of "China" being the worlds oldest civiliztion is baloney. There was a series of kingdoms and states in the geographic region currently known as the PRC, but these were not "China" and the idea of refereing to them as "Dynasties" is ridiculous. THe most notorious textbooks are not the Japanese revisions of WW2 but the Chinese, who refuse to recognize that the Mongols concquered the territory, and the Kingdom of Manchu (Qing) concquered the kingdom of Ming. The British and French invasions were minor in comparison, but the racist textbooks call them "foreign invadors' and refer to the Manchu invadors as "Chinese". How ironic! (68.100.62.36 01:11 Apr 9 2005 (UTC))

Please note the edits to the Manchu article by this anonymous contributor. [35] [36] — Insta ntnood 07:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Typical POV pusher. I've reverted his edits. To anon: try and learn to work within the framework of NPOV. Also, distinguish "civilization" from "state". -- ran (talk) 19:19, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

(see Wikipedia:Chinese naming controversy)

Proposed revision on Mainland China

I thought I'd better advertise here, so please come and have look at it: Talk:Mainland_China#Proposed_revision. -- User:Alassius (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)