Talk:Chinese civilization

Human Rights

This may seem out of place, however having browsed the page I am unable to locate (any) real references to the Chinese Human rights or the lack thereof. Such information would seem to me to be important for persons with little or no knowledge about China as this will inevitably be one of the great issues (politically) for China in the future. I will not add until I have received encourage or discouragement, I presume there is a reason for no addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagpipes1 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if it should be added, it would be in the "People's Republic of China" article, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.137.233 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I accept your point, however is this not just an argument for the comments below? Where the PRC page is merged with this one? (109.149.40.122 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC))

Requested move

• China → Chinese civilization
• China (disambiguation) → China

Because China can refer primarily to the current article before 1912, whereas in a more modern context it refers generally to the People's Republic of China, but also to the Republic of China - with all three being listed at the top of the disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Given China's 5000 year old history this is the primary topic for the term in the past, whereas People's Republic of China is generally considered the primary topic for current usage of the term. Additionally the disambiguation link is currently not particularly clear if you want to read about china in the context of fine porcelain.

I want to keep the Republic of China's de-facto status in the current article as a sub-primary topic to reduce the scope of this move request, any issues with that its status with regards to being a primary topic can be sorted out later. Of note while generally disambiguation pages have only one primary topic, it seems to make more sense here to have multiple primary topics to aid the reader. This has also been done at iOS for example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Polling

Comment of note this has spun out from discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political_NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A matter of procedure, it should be Chinese civilisation as in Hong Kong English. Nightw 06:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why Hong Kong English is the variety of English to use here. Chinese civilization, of which the British colonization of Hong Kong is only a short and small part, is not attached to any national variety of English. The civilization article uses the z, and though Chinese civilization was never a full-fledged article, "Chinese civilization" was created and used from 2004, while "Chinese civilisation" was created in 2007, so we should retain the existing variety. Quigley (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. With the current configuation, many articles link to this article ("China") about Chinese civilization when they mean "China" as in the "People's Republic of China". It is definitely correct that Chinese civilization is not the primary topic for current usage of the term, and even the assertion that "this is the primary topic for the term in the past" is shaky, as historical articles refer to past Chinese countries and ruling dynasties at least as often as they refer to China in the ethno-cultural sense. This move will help people clarify what they mean when they say "China", and will help people using semi-automated tools to clear up any ambiguity in the future, while retaining the status quo of not favoring either the PRC or ROC viewpoint about who has primacy over the use of "China". Quigley (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  That would support the first part of the move, but otherwise the rationale that the PRC is what people mean when they link here would favor redirecting the base name to the PRC article and linking the dab page from a hatnote there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The primary topic is the nation of China, it's history, civilisation, it's people, etcetera. That's what the current article is about, as it should be. There is only one China. As for what government constitutes China, that's disputed, and it's not for Wikipedia to decide. The hatnotes on the current article effectively make it a disambiguation page anyway, but with context. Most readers searching for "China" are only going to want one of three items: Chinese civilisation, the PRC and the ROC, and they get easy access to them all on that page. A ordinary disambiguation page with links and messy explanations just means they're forced to click more. Nightw 18:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Its not going to be an ordinary disambiguation page. That isn't what's been suggested at all. What's been suggested is making Chinese civilisation, the PRC and the ROC all "primary" topics linked at the top of the list. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment see this for a preliminary example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And how is this a better setup than the current China page, which provides easy redirection through hatnotes and content central to the primary topic? How would readers benefit from ordinary links on an otherwise blank page more than they would from arriving at what is essentially an introductory article for a complex subject? Nightw 18:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, it is currently ambiguous whether editors intend to send readers to the Chinese civilization article or some other (primarily, PRC) use of "China". If [[China]] links to a proper disambiguation page, then editors are forced to clarify whether they mean the PRC, Chinese civilization, or something else. Readers benefit because as a result, less of them will come to the Chinese civilization talk page (as many have done above this discussion) to complain, "why was I sent here when I wanted PRC?" I'm not convinced that Chinese civilization (which is distinct from China the country, by which I mean not only the PRC and the ROC but also the various historical dynasties) is the primary topic for "China". You have asserted this but provided no evidence for it. Quigley (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. By "readers complaining above this discussion" you mean the confirmed sock and the IP who cites in-depth Wikipedia policy? Editors won't be "forced" to disambiguate their links, and they won't bother. The clerks at WP:WPDAB will clean up after them as per usual. And given that this is currently the 34th most linked-to article, that's a battle that won't be won anytime soon. Nightw 19:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

At least with a disambiguation page you have a better chance of cleaning the links up, it makes it clear that they are broken so people can then pick the most sensible one rather than worrying about whether the editor in question wanted to actually link to this article. Additionally making this a disambiguation page aids people using semi-automated and automated tools to resolve the linking issues.

Additionally going straight to a disambiguation page means that other uses of the word china, such as for porcelain become more prominently linked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiprojects Countries, China, Taiwan and Disambiguation notified. Nightw 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. China should remain a valid link target, and the topic discussed in the current China article is a reasonable compromise between the vernacular primary topic People's Republic of China and the political tension resulting from that vernacular usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Struck by JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually frankly the current China article is a mess. The lead is really poor as it attempts to disambiguate the topics without being a disambiguation page. Additionally this change will keep the Republic of China's position. While that article could be removed after completing this move, it could also be quite easily removed before completing it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the lead reads fine. It effectively outlines the issue in a way that this, or any list of links on an otherwise blank page, could never hope to. Nightw 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You could easily take most of the context from the two bullet points and add them to the disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No you can't. Context is established not just through text, but also via wikilinks to articles providing elaborative information to the reader. Under WP:MOSDAB, extra links are forbidden and text is generally restricted to one line per item. Nightw 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think all the extra links are necessary, but I take your point that they do add some value. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per Quigley. Kauffner (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. To me, this serves visitors best:

• China --> Chinese civilization (because that's what the article is about)
• People's Republic of China --> China (because when people click China, 99% of the time they want People's Republic of China)
• Salt and pepper with hatnotes as you see fit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Page hits to People's Republic of China is currently around 10k/day, and China is 13k/day. I'd bet if clicking China went directly to People's Republic of China, then the article on civilization (currently named China) would drop to 2k/day, as visitors hit their mark. As it stands now, the vast majority of people landing on China click the hatnote to People's Republic of China within 5 seconds.

This is not a move request involving the move of the PRC article to China alone, which would most surely be defeated. The reasons for not performing such a move have been discussed to death. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

From the last move discussion in 2008, and the WT:NC-CHINA discussion earlier this week, it seems that that formula is too controversial to gain a solid consensus. The current move proposal is a compromise from that but also an improvement in the way of leading readers to what they are searching for. Quigley (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear. The most sensible course of action if you are pressing for change, even if I do not necessarily support or oppose this proposal. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 01:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The wording on the current China page is that "Two states with the name China", which means China currently is already pretty much a disambiguation page. Moving China (disambiguation) to China is just forcing the user to click one more time which is not helpful. T-1000 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a good overview article that covers all China. No need ot have the disambiguation page here. I think this exact proposal failed recently; and similar move requests have failed many times. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• HXL's figures about readership of the two articles show without a shadow of a doubt that this isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term 'China' and therefore it should be a disambiguation page. Even if we assume that everyone is getting to the right article 13k over 10k isn't enough to make this the primary topic. By any reasonable view recentism doesn't apply as the communists have been in power for 60 years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

*Strong oppose. "China" is the commonest English language name for the world's biggest country and one which will likely overtake the US. You won't disambiguate United States but it could be United States of Britain! Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Above comment is made by a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet so should be ignored. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• The above is a good example of the confusion that having an article of this type at this location creates. The writer takes it for granted that "China" refers to the People's Republic. Kauffner (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• You think that the article at this location caused the writer to take it for granted that "China" refers to the PRC? That's a stretch. Many English-speaking people take it for granted that "China" refers to the PRC -- that's how the effect communication when talking about the PRC, the speaker says "China" and the listener hears "China" and they both assume PRC, even if they don't know that the country's official name is the People's Republic of China. Similarly they use "Taiwan" when they mean (and possibly don't know) RoC. That's the vernacular usage, and would be the primary topic here except for the controversy behind these particular entities. But having an article of this type does not cause any of that resulting confusion (if there is any confusion). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• That's not what I meant. I meant that the writer assumes that an article named "China" must be about the PRC, despite the fact that the nominator explains that this is not the case. Kauffner (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• 99% of the planet assumes article "China" is going to be about PRC, and then they have to click to the right place. I think all rules should be ignored, and we should serve the visitors. Then solve other hatnotes/dabs etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• But everyone seems to forgetting that, especially in the airline industry, 'China' often points only to the mainland, which is not equal to the PRC. As an additional example, the US government does not treat Hong Kong as just another Chinese city. Please quit citing a number without evidence. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 13:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - pretty much sick of this discussion and agreeing mostly with Quigley and Eraserhead. its silly to throw around numbers but it is clear that English uses China to refer to the state, its territory and its population. So we should give them information about that, except the political controversy requires a disambiguation. Sounds like a good compromise to me. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • 1. How is it "clear" that English uses China to refer to the state “PRC”, rather than the entity?
    2. Even if English uses China to refer to the state “PRC”, it is still non-NPOV to limit the article about civilization, nation and entity to civilization only. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - If this move were to set a precedent, then many countries in the world should also have a disambiguation page which is ridiculous. Unless someone lives in a cave in deepest Borneo they know about China and Taiwan being two places (for now at least) - China is the People's Republic of China which is why it has a seat at the United Nations and Taiwan doesn't. There are hundreds more arguments against such a move but linking the keyword "China" to a disambiguation page would make Qin Shihuang turn in his mausoleum. My two RMB's worth ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You realise that the China article isn't about the People's Republic of China... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Before voting please read the article China for Chris' sake: the article doesn't deal with China (the country) at all, but rather with Chinese culture. IMHO the most common meaning for the name 'China' is the de facto and de jure the People's Republic of China. Therefore I'm simply going to choose between two different evils: the current status-quo (which carefully avoids giving the name 'China' to the PRC because "the PRC is an evil dictatorship") and a lesser evil in which the name 'China' becomes a disambiguation page. IMHO his move is merely a step into the right direction. Flamarande (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  I have seen what happens after other similar moves, and I can tell you will happen if this article is renamed Chinese civilization. People who are looking for PRC article will no longer click on it, and it will gradually disappear in the result rankings for "China". So the practical effect is the same making the term "China" lead to the PRC article (assuming that is fact the article that people typing in the term "China" want to read). Kauffner (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody will verify these results in a couple of months/years and make the obvious conclusions; he/she will make a move proposal of 'China' towards 'China (disambiguation)' and 'People's Republic of China' towards 'China'. I already know that I'm going to vote in favour. Flamarande (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been stated repeatedly, the second notion is too controversial to have even a weak consensus. I assure you that that move request simplifying the name will be swiftly defeated as was the case many times in the past (you can go look for yourself). This is good enough of a compromise as it is...anything further will be flagrant violation of policy and a major hassle. Just think how many [[China]] links there are that have a pre-1949 context. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support (replacing my earlier !vote) as an improvement towards the goal, per Kauffner and (I believe) the requester. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I agree with points above that in current vernacular China refers to the PRC. In fact most (if not all) of the citizens of the ROC I have met balk at being called Chinese, and insist that they are actually Taiwanese. At the moment I've seen many times when "China" is linked in a list of countries by wikipedia editors and IP's, a link clearly meant for the PRC. If such links now lead to a disambiguation page, they would be easily picked up on and fixed. In the end, I'm fairly sure that when people search "China" they aren't searching for Chinese civilization. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support At some point a primary topic discussion should happen. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Where is it from to get silly Idea of making Civilisation stand in for modern Nation. Egypt? [[Greece]?? 1949 is no bright Line for China or 1947 for India. Just admit this Civilisation Arrangement is KMT Propaganda. You hate CCP. Admit. People want to read about China here like all other Nation.203.184.138.131 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support (with reservation). Most of the sources use China as the common name for the PRC. STSC (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but you (and others before you) have apparently misread the proposal, which is to make China a disambiguation page. This won't affect the PRC's article. Nightw 11:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is: I don't support using the current China article solely for Chinese civilization because it's the common name for PRC; and I support the use of a disambiguation page for Wiki readers to choose what they want (including the PRC article). STSC (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Nightw 16:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Although it doesn't save visitors the extra click to get to what they are probably looking for (PRC), it's a step in the right direction. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose to the highest degree. The biggest proponent to refer the PRC as China is due to WP:Common Name but the biggest reason why the PRC article is where is it and the China article is about the Chinese nation since antiquity to the present day is due to an even more important wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. In no way can wikipedia afford to move away from such a core policy as to actually deviate from being a neutral entity by designating the PRC as the sole government of "China". As an overseas Chinese, I am appalled by this suggestion. Such a move has been suggested numerous times before, and repeatedly rejected due to the very reason of this being a huge minefield, and the same outcome should prevail today regardless of the number of votes. And the China article is no precedent when it comes to sensitive topics, especially of divided nations and disputed name usage. Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are also treated in this manner, just as Taiwan and the Republic of China are named as such.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Oppose. I just realised I was too jumpy and misread the proposal. Still, I would prefer the articles remain where they are, for the opening line "China is seen variously as an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and/or a multinational entity." is quite apt and serves its purpose well, and is also a visible reminder that the Chinese civilisation did not end in 1950.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• We are only proposing to move this page on the Chinese nation/civilisation to 'Chinese civilization' and moving the disambiguation page titled 'China' to [[China]]. A move from PRC to [[China]] is NOT in the works here. Please consider this...even though I oppose the move from PRC to China as strongly as you do, I have not voted on this proposal. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 17:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as a first step to getting Wikipedia to recognise what is obviously the primary, unambiguous meaning of "China", i.e., the People's Republic of China. Unfortunately, editors still stuck in the Cold War/Chinese Civil War will block action to rectify that. However, at least one should allow readers to see a DAB page upon typing "China" rather than the mealymouthed gobbledygook ("China is...an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and/or a multinational entity".) they are confronted with now. —  AjaxSmack  22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – Both the PRC and ROC have never agreed to call their shared-past-country as "Chinese civilization". Benjwong (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia care about that? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Support move of [[China (disambiguation)]] to [[China]]. Not sure about the other half of the proposal because "Chinese civilization" seems an inadequate title. --Tesscass (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose redirecting PRC to China is not neutral, as it imply the ROC is illegitmate. Therefore, the next best thing is to have China be a general article like the current setup. 159.83.4.148 (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Redirecting the PRC to China is not the proposal. Please read the move request again and reconsider your opposition. Quigley (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• some people here definitely need to read WP:POVTITLE. mgeo talk 09:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• And some people need to remember what this proposal is about or realise the overriding power of consensus. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 13:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Not really needed. PRC can't be here because of NPOV, and it's one click to reach the PRC article. 76.173.173.24 (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC) — 76.173.173.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Redirecting the PRC to China is not the proposal. Please read the move request again and reconsider your opposition. Quigley (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• I presume the opposes like this one will be ignored when the discussion is closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose having a commonly used term like 'China' go to a disambiguation page is unacceptable, especially when there is a good page there now. Commonly used terms only redirect to disambiguation pages if there are several unrelated commonly used meanings for the term (see Compact, for instance). LK (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue is that the current article clearly isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term - see for example the number of opposes that assume that China must be about the PRC only in this move discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Since you agree that there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then according to WP:DISAMBIG, that primary topic (and not a disambiguation) must occupy the page. If the article currently doesn't reflect the primary topic, then the article should be changed accordingly. This is not an argument for replacing the article with a disambiguation page. LK (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
      • There is a primary topic, but its primacy is difficult to measure right now, because "China" is both an article about Chinese civilization (which is not the primary topic, but a compromise for "NPOV") and a de facto disambiguation page. As a result, page hits to People's Republic of China is currently around 10k/day, and China is 13k/day—no clear primary topic, because of the ambiguous dual-use of the current "China" page. Once these different uses are separated by the move request, and the new usage data comes from time, many of these amazing arguments we see here: "[C]licking China should lead to the Republic of China first, because that came first", will crumble in the face of the evidence. Even if you don't agree with me on what the primary topic is, you should agree that this move will help answer the question. Quigley (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not entirely convinced that the PRC is the clear primary topic for the term and it may well be that there is no primary topic for the term China, but what is certainly true is that this page is not clearly the primary topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Both governments say there is only one China, and all world governments adhere to this policy. This article should be about that one China. Rennell435 (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And what "one China" is that? The pre-1912 China? Because basically that's what this article is about. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Er, no it isn't. The article discusses what all world governments recognise as China, its etymology, geography, it traces its history from prehistoric times to the present, explores everything from the climate in Taiwan to the Olympics in Beijing. Just one example: see the difference between the Geography of China and the Geography of the People's Republic of China, or see Palestine and Western Sahara for other cases. Rennell435 (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
      • But even so it still isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. Its hit-count is basically the same as the PRC page, which is what in a modern context is commonly referred to as China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposed name is a poor choice anyway. Just what exactly would the subpages then be called? Geography of Chinese civilization? List of rivers in the Chinese civilization? Nightw 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Those could still be Geography of China and List of rivers in China - as none of those change due to politics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The weather in the one China, not either of the two Chinas.

Actually, they do, since Geography of the People's Republic of China and Geography of the Republic of China are completely different. Geography of China combines both, as this article does. See, for example, this weather map from the central article, which describes precipitation in China, including mainland China and Taiwan. This is the geography of the country China, not the "Chinese civilisation". Nightw 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Geography of the Republic of China is just a list of islands, and frankly its probable that really Geography of the People's Republic of China and Geography of China should be merged. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NC-TW. No they shouldn't. Entirely different topics. You are arguing against the internationally-accepted political ideology that China is a single country. As an example, which article would the climate map of China (pictured, or any other similar map) then be featured on? It would simply be orphaned since our article on the geography of China would have disappeared. Nightw 20:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - It's rather unclear what the exact topics would be in the proposed disambiguation page for China. Please clarify to avoid further misunderstanding. STSC (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The disambiguation page exists now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It would however have the PRC, the ROC (Taiwan) and Chinese civilisation as "common" topics listed at the top. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with "China commonly refers to ROC (Taiwan)" because it just isn't true. What's the exact wording for these "common" topics? STSC (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The harm of that isn't particularly great given you need a disambiguation page anyway to differentiate between the PRC and the civilisation and that avoids having to discuss whether the ROC is worthy as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I support the principle of using a disambiguation page, it must be carefully constructed through consensus, e.g., I would list the ROC (Taiwan) as one of the links but not as a common topic as PRC because it gives the impression that there are two Chinas. STSC (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

... Um, there is. Nightw 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

... No, there isn't. STSC (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipeda doesn't have to stick to officiated fantasies. In reality there are two. In official policy, there is one. And as someone said above, this page effectively describes that theoretical "one China" whilst also being way better at disambiguating than any list of links ever could. Nightw 10:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia can ignore officiated fantasies then there is only one China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Which official doctrine states there is two Chinas? That's the reality (i.e., the objective perspective), not the doctrine. And from your recent comments, your own political POV is now blatantly obvious. Perhaps tone it down a bit? Nightw 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My "political POV" is just following the common names used to describe places. The PRC is known as China and the ROC is known as Taiwan. That's the reality. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion. I suggest the China disambiguation page to be based on the model of Congo disambiguation page. The ROC can be listed with the period of 1911-1972; during that period the ROC was representing China until the PRC took over their UN seat. STSC (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Being in the UN is not a requirement for being a country, so that's definitely POV. T-1000 (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of changes require a consensus, which cannot be achieved if we get off-topic. We can quibble over whether or not there are two Chinas and which came first another day. Wikipedia guidelines clearly call for a disambiguation page in the case of a title being associated with more than one topic. "China" is obviously such a case. Making "China" into a disambiguation page leaves us with the issue of what to do with the article currently at "China". "Chinese civilization" is an unambiguous common English term for the topic. Please limit discussion to comments directly related to this proposal. If you support or oppose the proposal please state clearly. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. My reading of WP:Disambiguation is that a disambiguation page should occupy the main page only if the term commonly refers to several unrelated topics. The situation is here is similar to that at Christianity. There as well, an argument could be made that there are several topics which share the same name, and that a disambiguation page should point to Roman catholic, Protestant, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, etc. However, there is consensus that a coherent concept called 'Christianity' exists, and that it includes these many contentious groups. A similar situation played out at Libertarianism, where some editors argued that only certain groups were 'libertarian' with the others falsely using that name. LK (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is almost always used to refer to the religion as a whole, whereas China is very frequently used to just refer to the People's Republic of China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many evangelicals who would not accept that these groups are Christian: Roman catholics (popists), Eastern Orthodox (who?), Mormons, Universalists, Unitarians, Shakers, etc. Just because a large number (perhaps even a majority) of people do not consider some groups as Christian does not mean that the concept of Christianity does not include these groups. Similarly, just because many use China to refer to PRC does not mean that China does not include what others consider to also be part of China. LK (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

With regards to your first point are any of those views not WP:FRINGE? With regards to the second that's why there is a suggestion of having a disambiguation page. The fact that people use China to just refer to the PRC only shows that this page doesn't meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it doesn't mean the other views are invalid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

regardless of what a few Evangelical Christians think about the term "Christian". The term "China" does not unambiguously refer to the topic of this article, "Chinese civilization". It is normal in English to use the term "China" to refer to other things, especially the PRC. Because of this the reader should be directed to a disambiguation page. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current article, with its existing hatnotes to People's Republic of China, Republic of China and China (disambiguation), does an excellent job of dealing with an awesome collection of POVs. Hard to imagine a better solution, and this proposal certainly ain't it. Andrewa (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Other than this article not meeting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term given the high readership of the People's Republic of China, and this move not changing how the ROC/PRC POV's are handled in any substantial way I completely agree that the current position is a good solution, however those concerns are rather substantial.
    • Disagree strongly re primary topic. China existed long before the PRC, and many things long regarded as typically chinese are alien to the PRC, and many who call themselves and are widely identified as Chinese have and wish no connection with the PRC. Stepping back from the POVs, China is clearly a much more general topic, which includes the PRC as a subset. It's not a matter of disambiguation at all, so the question of primary topic doesn't arise. The distinction between the PRC and Chinese porcelain, for example, is one of disambiguation, but that's a different issue. This point is also discussed below. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry but you can see from the posts above that some users are confused and assume that the PRC must be what this article is about. The PRC is exclusively referred to as China by the media in a modern context, and thus it is a legitimate target for someone clicking on the link China. That the civilisation is important too is true, but it isn't the only primary use case for the word China and thus why a disambiguation page is appropriate. People can quite reasonably click on a link to the word China and either want to read about the civilisation or read about the modern nation state commonly known as China, taking them to a page on the civilisation directly is confusing.
        • Agree with much of this but the last sentence does not follow IMO. And confused? I'm skeptical. Didn't they know that China is older than the PRC? Of course they do. They may not agree with the article name, we already know that some strongly disagree with it for POV reasons and that's not a breach of WP:AGF because they're quite open about it. But that's hardly a confused state of mind, just the opposite. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm sure they know China is older than the PRC, but given that's the article you'd generally expect to find here they are likely to be confused to find that it isn't. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
      • This move request also keeps the POV issues in balance by keeping the ROC's de-facto equal status on Wikipedia intact by giving it a direct link at the top of the disambiguation page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Agree that weight is not a problem with the proposal, but still think the proposed move is totally unnecessary. What should happen instead is that this article should be developed as an overview article of all of China, the area, civilization and the various states... and ROC will be a very small footnote in all of this, so it's certainly not pandaring to that POV. The weasily lead sentence needs work, for a start. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
          • .See below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If anything the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 'China' is the People's Republic of China due to that being a WP:VITAL article, and the civilisation and the Republic of China not meeting that criteria.
    • Quite apart from the irrelevance of that particular guideline (see above), this suggests that inclusion in the vital article list is one of the key criteria for determining primary topic... has that proposal been discussed? Where? The list doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the current guideline, and should be prominently described there if it's to be used in this way. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • See below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Currently this means that the PRC is almost certainly the only WP:VITAL article not at its common name, although this move request does at least make a small compromise towards that position. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Again, this seems to propose a role for the vital article list not currently documented, or at least not well documented. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • To quote the guideline "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article." - looks pretty clear to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Quite right, not sure how I missed that! There remains the question of the relevance of this guideline. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
          • The relevance of the guideline is that it makes it completely clear that the civilisation page isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name 'China'. The reason I think this move is worthwhile is that if someone links something to China when they mean to link to the PRC we cannot easily change the link to point at the right article. Trying to keep this article here and not use a disambiguation page where it clearly isn't the primary usage of the term seems pretty silly and confusing to our readers who aren't interested in reading about the history of China, but instead want to know about the modern nation state - which after all is the WP:VITAL article.
          • You could make the arguments you have made here about India, but in that case the article at India is primarily about the modern nation state and not about its historical position, and that's how every other country in the world is generally organised - this move request doesn't go to that position, but at least it means the modern nation state is linked with more than a hatnote on an unrelated article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• As someone said above, this article isn't about the history of China. In fact, history is only one section. Have you actually read the article, Eraserhead? And just for the record, Republic of China is as much a vital article as People's Republic of China. So I'm confused with your arguments. Nightw 20:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• No it isn't. Republic of China is not listed at WP:VITAL. And with regards to History yes there is other content here, but it isn't an article about which discussed the modern nation state properly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe you should know educate yourself on the purpose of that list. Read the expanded list. The talk page of every vital article will also indicate its level. See Talk:Republic of China, or the talk page of any other country. What "the modern nation state" constitutes is in dispute, hasn't anyone told you yet? Nightw 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• The purpose of the level 3 WP:VITAL list is to list the 1000 most important articles, and is generally considered the most important level, and its the one linked from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The expanded level 4 list is hardly interesting with regards to countries as it lists every country in the world. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let's try it this way. Go to Talk:Republic of China, read through the topboxes, and then come back and tell me again that "no it isn't" a vital article. Nightw 20:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Its not a vital article because its not on the list. Only 1000 articles are on the list and only 22 countries are listed - its an exclusive group. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Read the purpose of the list, which you've just copy-pasted here presumably without reading it. It's a list of vital articles that have been selected to showcase as the "most vital". It's a sampling. It doesn't mean that all other vital articles are no longer such because they're not on the sampling. See Category:Wikipedia level-3 vital articles and its subcat Category:Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Geography. Do I need to get an editor from WP:1.0 to explain it to you? Nightw 07:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please get an editor from WP:1.0 to explain the matter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Nightw 08:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Republic of China was previously a vital article but is not anymore. In any case, I don't think we should rely on this list for choosing primary topics. They now choose the countries based on the number of English speakers, total population, etc. so plenty of important countries are missing. Laurent (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, but its pretty clear that the PRC is more important in today's world than the ROC. Which the WP:VITAL list shows. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support since we apparently cannot achieve consensus about the primary topic of "China", making China a dab page is what we must do per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That requires moving the article currently at China elsewhere, and Chinese civilization seems like a reasonable descriptive title that meets the principal naming criteria at WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support. I have always hated that China isn't the article about the People's Republic of China, or at least a redirect to it. It's clearly the primary topic for the term "China". I bet that at least 9 out of 10 times when people search for the term "China" they are looking for the article about the PRC. If people want to read about the Republic of China they will write "Taiwan"(which btw wont get them to their intended target either). And if people want to read about the history of the Chinese civiliaztion, they will probably write something "history of Chinese civilization", as it would seem obvious to any outsider that just "China" would(/should) lead them to an article about the PRC. Nowhere in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about article naming does it say anything about that we should take regional politics into account when naming articles. This to me seems like a clear case where trying to please POV editors detracts from the experience for regular readers of the encyclopedia. This suggested move does not fix the problem, but if it can act as a stepping stone to get article naming which is in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, then I am for it.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, Merging PRC and China makes China "just PRC", therefore implying that either the ROC is an illegitmate gov't holding on the PRC land, or (if the ROC is legitmate) Taiwan is not part China. Can you actually address the issues instead of what you hate? T-1000 (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The only issue which there is here to address here is to decide what is the primary topic for the term "China", and I think I addressed that pretty clearly in my comment. Nowhere in the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does it say anything about that we should take regional politics into account when naming articles. The only thing that naming the PRC article "China" would imply is that "China" is the common name for the country, and that the country is the primary topic for the term "China".TheFreeloader (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV policy does not allow us to take sides in disputes. By renaming PRC to China, Wiki automatically saying ROC is not China, which is taking a side in a dispute and violates NPOV. NPOV is non-negotiable. Furthermore, even in common usage, "China" does not refer to just PRC. A common sentence like "China defeated Japan in 1940", China here is not referring to PRC, but ROC. T-1000 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is WP:POVTITLE. Whether or not the evidence is strong enough to meet that is up for debate, given the historic context, but its not a totally invalid position. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already addressed this. That applies to offensive words in descriptive titles, which is not the issue here. Like I said, it's a good thing that the section gave examples to let us know what it is intended for. Furthermore, What China refers to in common usage is dependent on context, and not just PRC. T-1000 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it applies to all sorts of POV issues with the title, no reason it couldn't in theory apply here. If the sources all use a "non-neutral" name then so should we. Of course proving that - especially including the history is harder, but I don't think rejecting it out of hand is reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, what "China" means in sources is dependent on what the Source is talking about. There is no single meaning. T-1000 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I am really not that comfortable with trying to WP:NPOV to titling of articles. I think true neutralities comes from treating all cases according to the same rules (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this situation). But if we are going to try to apply WP:NPOV here, then part of it is also WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE which says that we should not necessarily give equal validity to all sides in a dispute. And if I was going to apply that to this situation, it could mean that we should not necessarily treat the PRC and the ROC's claim to being "China" equally. Rather as most people searching for the term "China" probably are looking for the article about the PRC (and because most reliable sources mentioning the term "China" are referring to the PRC), its claim to being "China" could be given more weight per WP:DUE. But again I have to say that I don't really like trying to apply WP:NPOV to article naming at all. I think a lot of bad decisions come out of it and it makes article titles into a battleground for POV warriors, seeing as judgments over what is neutral and what isn't are pretty much alway based on personal opinions (which I see as tantamount to original research), and seeing as WP:NPOV isn't written with titling of article in mind, which means that neutrality can be interpreted to mean pretty much anything.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Article titles directly influences article content. If PRC and China are merged, then the article can't have information on ROC which implies that ROC is not China. And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows for "occasional exceptions", I think this is one of those cases. T-1000 (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that. Just like the fact that the article Napoleon is about Napoleon Bonaparte doesn't mean that Napoleon III isn't a Napoleon. All it implies is that Napoleon Bonaparte is the primary topic for that term, and the hatnote in the article will clarify that the term may refer to other things. But in any event, this RM is only about moving the disambiguation page to China. So how about we save the discussion about whether the PRC is (or should be) the primary topic for China until the move request for that gets made.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

To use your analogy, Napoleon III never claimed that there is only one Napoleon. T-1000 (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Partial support. Move China to Chinese civilization, and have China redirect to the PRC article. I don't mean to offend anybody, or anything, but it seems to me that the PRC article is in fact the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the search term "China". Mlm42 (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quigley's view (“China is an article about the civilization only”) is untenable, because claim concerning the ultimate nature of China is often unneutral, so the article says: “China is seen variously as an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and a multinational entity.” The move will violate the NPOV policy, because it considers China only as a civilization. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Um, that's the current position... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The new position will make 'China' a disambiguation page so you can go and view the articles on the PRC, ROC and the civilisation article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
      • But the new position is no longer neutral, in that it tries to limit the connotation of China. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Quite the opposite, it provides direct and equal links to all articles which refer to entities which have been called China in the past century with a direct link to the ROC, PRC and the civilisation article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
          • You've only seen one aspect of the issue, but haven't seen the other. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
          • That is, if the connotation of the current article China to be limit to the Chinese civilization only, the position of Wikipedia will become unneutral. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

            The current connotation of China is “civilization, nation, and entity” or “large nation, geographical area, and civilization”, it should not be limited to “civilization”-only - that's the bottom line, or it won't remain in Political NPOV. So I posted 2 alternative proposals. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as a step in the right direction. Ideally, there should be an article at China; but this article is clearly not it. It is not the primary topic of this. Common usage dictates that China refers overwhelmingly often to the PRC (no, this is not POV, it's just an honest reflection of contemporary English), but that's not something to deal with today. For now, it's sufficient to note that this article in not about China, it's about Chinese civilization, and should be there. For now, using China as a dab is probably the best compromise.
• Also, a note for the closing admin: I beg of you please not to close this with a simple headcount. Consensus is based on policy-driven arguments, not ones driven by people's patriotic views. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Except for a few cases where the numbers are overwhelming, an administrator who determines the results by a tally should not be closing discussions anyway. You may have consensus for this single operation (which will be a big DAB-bing mess), but you will never have anything close to consensus to move PRC to China. And be careful with your statements, such as "this article in not about China" (what China refers to is murky anyway, so you can't say that). —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 18:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I can. Frankly, what "China" refers to in standard, everyday English is not really all that murky at all. The only thing that's murky is the mess of POVs held by various folks who can't accept common English usage. And by the way, making prophecies about what will "never" happen is pretty hazardous business. You may end up surprised what will happen one day. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support only this procedure because the civilisation/land is certainly not the clear primary topic. Neither is the PRC, for that matter, but we should have never touched the latter part in this discussion in the first place. We are all wasting our time doing that here. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 02:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Common (and dastardly incorrect) usage..." See, it's when you use terminology like that that you show you've really got no interest in following our naming conventions at all, only in whatever is "correct" in your POV. I've got some news for you: Wikipedia policy doesn't give a damn what's "correct", it cares what's normal English. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Aside from the incivility of your post, your case fails every time a certain commonplace phrase is used. See below. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 02:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support. It seems likely that a majority of the people who navigate to "China" are looking for the PRC (this is how I stumbled across the article and this discussion); however, it would of course be improper to have "China" redirect to the PRC article due to the vast issues raised above. Nonetheless, having the current article appear under China is confusing for the reader and requires too much attention and investigation to resolve the ambiguity. It seems the best, and indeed only, solution is to move the dab page to "China" and move the current China article to "Chinese civilization" (or a similar name - the appropriateness of "Chinese civilization" can be discussed after the move). —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 19:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If the disambig page was moved to "China", that disambig page would not be treated just as a secondary page like it is now. Every dynasty since Qin has to some degree been called China. The disambig page would just say Qin, formerly referred to as China. Han, formerly referred to as China etc. Repeat, repeat.... The disambig page will look like another version of the Chinese dynasty article. Whereas right now at least the main China concept is presented, and disambig is secondary. Using disambig may cause more confusion. Benjwong (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What I was planning was to link the three most important articles at the top, below that we could have a section called Chinese dynasties which listed all of those, etc. etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - It is very unlikely that this article is the primary topic for the term "China". mgeo talk 09:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per nominator's comment. Pretty much what I always wanted to do - having China exclusively about Chinese civilization when most people are probably searching for PRC (or ROC) seems to me a bizarre arrangement. A disambiguation would serve the purpose and avoid a lot of unnecessary confusion. For example see the Congo page. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Disagree with proposal. I can accept moving China to China (geographical region) (compare with Macedonia), and moving China (disambiguation) to China though. 119.236.9.188 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any agreement on what China constitutes as a geographical region. However I admit I'm unfamiliar with scholarly research in this area. Batjik Syutfu 16:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Wrong. The current state is: China=(civilization, nation, and entity) or China=(large nation, geographical area, and civilization), depending on different articles. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support confusion about name China hasn't existed since 1971. Dalit Llama (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

What is the primary topic for the term "China"?

This is obviously a controvertial subject for many people; but WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says:

Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic.

Isn't it true that the primary topic for the term "China", is in fact People's Republic of China? This isn't intended as a political statement, but more about what people are likely to be searching for. Mlm42 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Depend on what people are searching for. If a student wants to do a report on China in WWII, obviously then China refers to ROC. T-1000 (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the guideline asks us to identify which topic they are most likely to be searching for, when they type "China" into the Wikipedia search bar. Mlm42 (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that China can refer to PRC, ROC, and any of the Chinese Dynasty before that, and with important events in each dynasty, don't think you can get one that is "much more likely than any other". It all depends on what the person is thinking when they type it. T-1000 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? The PRC article has about 10k views per day, while the ROC article has about 4k article views per day. The ROC article doesn't list "China" as a common name; and it fact that article acknowledges that "China" more commonly refers to the PRC. Mlm42 (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think your data proves that all of the usages are significant, and that none of them are fringe. T-1000 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

And this article has about 12k hits a day. It seems to me like this data points to disambiguation being the right answer as we don't know what people are looking for. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But the hits from this article only indicate that people are searching for "China".. the question is, what do those 12k people a day intend to find? I suspect it's the PRC article, since people commonly refer to that country as "China". Consider the incoming links to this article; I randomly selected some of those incoming links, and all of the ones I saw should have been pointing to People's Republic of China instead. Mlm42 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Since the registration of the word “China” as a civilization only violate the NPOV-policy, I post here an alternative proposal, even if neither do I support it.

• China → China (civilization, nation, and entity)
• China (disambiguation) → China

as corresponding to the stable version of the article “China”, or

• China → China (large nation, geographical area, and civilization)
• China (disambiguation) → China

as corresponding to the stable version of the article “China”. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Both of those names are really too long. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • They're too long, but at least it does not violate the NPOV-policy. Your proposal violate the NPOV-policy. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
      • How? Lets not forget the current status quo implies the PRC government is illegitimate by having another article at China and that page not even being a disambiguation page - obviously that has POV issues. The PRC is the only major country in the world whose article doesn't sit at its common name. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think I'm being a bit unreasonable here, if post move completion a better name can be come up with for this article I'm OK with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• IMO, and I know it doesn't count for much, it is far more enjoyable and enlightening to be sent to the current China which explains the reasons for the disambiguation, (and may disambuguate more clearly) than to go to a disambiguation page and have the same number of mouse clicks. The current China lead does a perfectly fine job of disambiguation. No need for the move. Cliff (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

lower case china

Is there a way to create a link for lower case china, as in fine china, to go straight to the disambiguation page or straight to fine china? Right now, lower case china also goes to the Chinese civilization. ContinentalAve (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The software is coded so that 'asdfghjkl' (for example) is wholly equal to 'Asdfghjkl'. There are no re-directs involved, so this cannot be changed. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 14:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to ask the bureaucrats to change the settings on MediaWiki for Wikipedia to do that. Wiktionary allows such distinctions, but Wikipedia does not. I don't think they'll ever change the settings on MediaWiki to allow lowercase/uppercase first letter distinction though, too many people enter only lowercase letters into the searchbox, so too many people would get to the wrong page. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Clicking China today

It seems, regardless of the topic above, that people keep bringing up the notion that China should bring visitors to People's Republic of China.

Please don't make me read tons of previous discussions to find out why this isn't so. It seems like commons sense that it should be, and I don't like getting entangled in mazes of circular logic.

The vast majority of editors here want this. The vast amount of clicks on China are intended for People's Republic of China. Can't we just do that? Then, all the other hatnote and dab page issues become simple. We're here to serve the visitors, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The matter of concern is not so much on the airy conjectures you have mentioned but the political implications of such a move, which I will not repeat. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 13:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Logically, China should be redirected to the PRC but we have to accommodate the ROC's view, so a disambiguation page would be a comprise for the time being. STSC (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

More importantly we have to accommodate the Chinese civilisations right to the name. If I go to a museum and go to the "China" section they are talking about the civilisation not the PRC. Given that we may as well accommodate the ROC's view as well.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, okay. I didn't consider that. I just kept thinking only that this is an encyclopedia where visitors search what they want to get to and that's it. I didn't realize so much political correctness should influence that. Sorry to bother everyone. I'll just drop it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a limit to how much an encyclopaedia should be made to fit the users. A dictionary can't provide an entry for "embarass" simply because lots of people would be looking for it. By similar logic, it is incorrect to direct China to PRC when there are two sovereign states claiming to represent China. A disambiguation, however, would let the user decide what he is looking for while maintaining the standards of an encyclopaedia, so it seems to me a win-win situation. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Logically "China" should cover all Chinese states that could be called China, as an overview article, while the specific state should be named specifically. All countries should also be done thusly. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, the China page should be set up like the one about China by CIA Factbook; and then it should include a link to the Republic of China (Taiwan) in the lead section. STSC (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should it be like the CIA? The CIA doesn't have a NPOV policy, it follows what the US recognizes: PRC. T-1000 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources also recognize the PRC. While the CIA does not even mention the ROC (but USA sells arms to ROC), we would at least acknowledge the existence of ROC in the China page. STSC (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only that. But the longest existing "modern" China is the ROC. PRC has just celebrated its 60th anniversary, while ROC is on its way to celebrating the 100th anniversary at the end of this year. No matter how long PRC has been around, ROC has been around longer. 100 > 60 you can even stretch it, and say ROC has been around almost twice as long as the PRC. Possibly clicking China should lead to the Republic of China first, because that came first. Benjwong (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We Wiki editors rely on what the sources tell us (Non-neutral but common names). STSC (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well's it's a good thing the that section gave examples, because that sections is clearly talking about offensive terms, not political disputes that Wikipedia is forbidden to take a side in. T-1000 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the section specially refers to "descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors.", and China is clearly not one of them. T-1000 (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The spirit of the guideline is to follow the sources in general. Wikipedia would only reflect China as the common name for the PRC in the sources. STSC (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is also common for sources to use "China" to refer to pre-PRC. "China defeated Japan in 1945", this China is not referring to PRC. T-1000 (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is common for sources to use "France" to refer to pre-French Fifth Republic (1958-present). "Germany defeated France in 1940", this France is not referring to FFR. Quigley (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Those examples given were used in a historical context; it's undeniable that China commonly refers to the PRC and rarely refers to the ROC in present days. The reality is the PRC representing China at international level at present, and most of the sources reflect that reality. STSC (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Then it goes back to the beginning point. The ROC still exists, while the France that Germany defeated doesn't anymore. Furthermore, Historical usage is also common. T-1000 (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the validity of arguments for or against China=>PRC, consensus for that idea is muddled at best. A stronger consensus would be needed to make a change with such strong political overtones. The less-dramatic change proposed above would allow us to make some progress on this issue and re-evaluate the consensus for redirecting China to PRC in a less confusing context. If we discuss one major change at a time then we might get somewhere, otherwise we just get a never-ending and chaotic debate. China=>PRC is a distraction from the current proposal. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

See above for some discussion on this. Just to summarise, I don't think the issue of primary topic even arises, because the distinction between this article and one on the PRC, or this and the ROC, are in neither case one of disambiguation, but rather of a subset/superset relationship. The issue of Chinese porcelain vs ROC vs PRC is one of disambiguation, but not this one. What we have is currently an overview article which should have {{main}} links to the various nations who are (strongly POV) claimants to the title China (country) or China (national state), etc.. And it's a very good, NPOV solution. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You can argue its a "subset/superset issue" but the problem is that the term China is commonly used to refer to the PRC in a modern context and the civilisation in an older context, and thus disambiguation is appropriate as there isn't a clear article that our readers expect when they search for China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The article these readers now get to is on exactly the topic they are seeking. If (and I still think this is a disingenious claim) they really didn't know that China existed before the PRC, then the topic is broader than they thought and they have learned something. Hey, didn't they come here for information? That's our whole purpose here.

This article does and should provide information on the PRC, and links to more detailed articles both on the PRC, its history etc., and on other aspects of China, as befits such an immense topic. Andrewa (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to do that then the right way to go about it is to include more history in the PRC article like other modern nation states do (e.g. India) as well as the in depth information about the country which they want to read about. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but this discussion is about this article. Should this article be at China, undisambiguated? I think it's a good topic and correctly named.

Or do you mean that the PRC article should go to this title? Not a chance. Nor should it.

India is a similar controversial discussion which comes up from time to time, but with not quite the same issues, so it's not a good model for what should happen here. Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Trying to claim that moving PRC here would be closed per WP:SNOW is frankly wrong. There is clearly a decent amount of support for it, maybe not enough to gain consensus, but enough to gain "no consensus" at the very least. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that such a requested move would be closed, it obviously wouldn't be as no admin would be stupid courageous enough to do it, but I'm still of the opinion that it should be closed as a waste of time having no chance of succeeding. I could be wrong, I am sometimes (as we saw above). Andrewa (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this before I started a section at the end of the requested move; but I agree with the original post of this thread. There are lots of political arguments floating around, but I still think China should redirect to People's Republic of China. I'm not convinced the "political implications" of such a move are strong enough. A hatnote at the top of the PRC article explaining "China redirects here. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)", should be enough, shouldn't it? We are a modern encyclopedia, and should be going with modern usage of terms (per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_modern_names). Do people actually use the term "China" to refer to the Republic of China? (I thought the common name was "Taiwan".) Sorry if what I just said was really offensive. Mlm42 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I had just given you an example, China in WWII would be referring to ROC. T-1000 (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming everyone who types in "China" will be looking for the PRC article. I'm only claiming that the vast majority of people will be. And that's all that's needed, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Mlm42 (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, The ROC gets 4k and stuff like the Qing Dynasty gets 2k, so those usage are significant as well, there's no "vast majority" . T-1000 (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthurmore, there are still the NPOV issue I mentioned earlier with ROC and Taiwan. The Primary topics pages allows for "occasional exceptions", while NPOV is non-negotiable. T-1000 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what the 4k hits a day for the ROC article means.. it doesn't mean that many people are attempting to get to that article by searching for "China". In fact, there doesn't seem to be very much evidence that a significant proportion of people who search for "China", are in fact looking for the ROC article.. but maybe I'm missing something?

Also, I think the NPOV argument is a little misguided; the policy WP:NPOV is about article content. The policy WP:NAME (and in particular, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)) is about article names. Mlm42 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why I also gave the views of the Qing Dynasty, which is also significant. As for NPOV, Article Titles directly influence article content. Rename PRC to China will still force Wiki to take a POV on whether the ROC is legitimate, and whether Taiwan is a part of China. Also, the graphical name article also allows for "occasional exceptions". T-1000 (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, wait. I still think the article title should be People's Republic of China. I'm just saying that China should redirect (see Wikipedia:Redirect) to the PRC article. This is for navigational reasons, not for political ones. Mlm42 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And I think this should be one of the "occasional exceptions" that Wikipedia:Redirect allows for. T-1000 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

All policies and guidelines allow for exceptions (see WP:IAR), but I'm not convinced that this should be an exception. Mlm42 (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've read a lot about this now. Some guidelines say we should do one thing. Other guidelines say we should do another.

China being about PRC violates NPOV etc. China being about the civilization or going to a dab page violates COMMONNAME etc.

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but shouldn't we discuss which guidelines supersede which? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV > Anything else marked policy > Anything marked guideline. See WP:POLICY. But the thing is that there are WP:NPOV issues with having this article here as it implies the PRC government isn't legitimate, so to an extent the WP:NPOV issues cancel out - especially if we go to a disambiguation page solution as I have suggested. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not convinced that China redirecting to People's Republic of China actually violates NPOV. Is it not true that the vast majority of people who use the term "China", are referring to the PRC? It seems to me that people might be reading a little too much into the situation.. unless there's something I'm not understanding? I understand there is a dispute between the governments, and of the technical usage of the term "China".. but in everyday usage, "China" is relatively unambiguous.. isn't it? Consider the number of English-language news sources who consistently use "China" when referring to the PRC. Mlm42 (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

T-1000's argument from NPOV is this: "Article titles directly influences article content. If PRC and China are merged, then the article can't have information on ROC which implies that ROC is not China." TheFreeloader gave a good response here ("the article Napoleon is about Napoleon Bonaparte doesn't mean that Napoleon III isn't a Napoleon... But in any event, this RM is only about moving the disambiguation page to China."), and my own response is that an article on the PRC can and should cover all of the Chinese dynasties and the ROC because the ROC came before the PRC. Actually, the PRC can even cover the ROC after the founding of the PRC, because of how significant the ROC is to the PRC's politics. Other aspects of T-1000's arguments from NPOV can be seen here, here, and here. Quigley (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And that response is inadequate. There is the issue of what to do with the Post 1949 ROC information. If the Merged China/PRC article doesn't have info on ROC post 1949, that implies that the ROC is no longer in China after 1949, which implies that Taiwan is not part of China. And that's a NPOV violation. T-1000 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A violation of which part of WP:NPOV? I don't see anywhere in WP:NPOV where issues like this is addressed. It's just your own view on what neutrality should mean which says that we need to give equal validity to the PRC and the ROC's claim to being China. WP:DUE on the contrary says that we should not necessarily treat all claims in a dispute equal, rather we should weigh the claims in accordance with how reliable sources weigh them. So when in this case reliable sources are most often referring to the PRC when talking about "China", I think it's well justified by WP:NPOV that we give the PRC's claim to being China more weight. I also think Eraserhead is right in saying that it is just as delegitimizing (if not more) to the PRC to make exceptions to our rules to take credit away from them, which is why I have argued from the start that the only way to stay neutral in disputes like this is to make no special exceptions to our naming conventions.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A violation of this Part: "not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"." Merging PRC and China implies it is true that China = PRC. And Wikipedia is not giving equal validity, Wikipedia is silent on the issue of legitimacy. Let the reader form their own opinion about the validity of the claims. And I like said before, Merging PRC and China will still force Wikipedia to take a side on whether Taiwan is part of the PRC or not. T-1000 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I can't find the quote you made from WP:NPOV. As I read WP:DUE it actually says that we should identify the "the best view", in that we need to represent the views in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. So when a great majority of reliable sources aren't afraid to imply that the PRC is China by referring to it as China, Wikipedia shouldn't either. I also think that this implication only exists if one buys into the rhetoric that there is only one China.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is from Five Pillars. Furthermore, sources are clearly split on whether Taiwan is part of PRC or not, so the NPOV issues are still there. T-1000 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And how does calling the PRC "China" say anything about whether Taiwan is part of the PRC?TheFreeloader (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Because if China = PRC, and Taiwan is part of China, the ROC is an illegitimate gov't holding on the PRC land. Or if the ROC is indeed legitimate, then Taiwan is not part of China. T-1000 (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Or the PRC is a China, and the ROC is another one. But even if your (IMO pretty far fetched) implications of referring to the PRC as "China" are true, we are still not implying anything which isn't also implied by a large majority of reliable sources using the term "China".TheFreeloader (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Even though the majority of sources refer to PRC as China, they disagree on whether or not this "China" includes Taiwan. For some sources yes, for others no. It is impossible to both include and exclude Taiwan from an merged China/PRC article. The solution was to separate out the China/Taiwan/PRC/ROC articles. This way, everything can be about de facto control. Nothing about Legitimacy or sovereignty. legitimacy and sovereignty are inherently POV, but de facto control can never be disputed, and thus is neutral. That's why the current setup works. T-1000 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I just don't think that sources are trying to send a message about whether the ROC is legitimately governing Taiwan when they use the name "China" for the PRC. So I don't know why Wikipedia should be interpreted to send any messages when it does the same. I don't think we should be that paranoid about what using the term "China" might imply, when reliable sources aren't. I mean Encyclopedia Britannica aren't worried about using "China" as the name of their on the PRC[1], and I don't think they want to imply anything about the ROC being illegitimate.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have a NPOV policy. T-1000 (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So you think that means they want to imply that the ROC is illegitimate?TheFreeloader (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain only recognizes PRC, right? T-1000 (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The company publishing the Encyclopedia Britannica is headquartered in Chicago and the articles are written by independent academics mainly from American universities. I have quite a hard time imagining they should want to appear to carry any sort of bias.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

US doesn't recognize ROC either. Hard to imagine American universities going against what the US recognize. T-1000 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

T-1000, that's not hard to imagine. And your claim that Encyclopedia Britannica is biased is pretty far fetched.. for example, they have an article on Taiwan, which seems pretty neutral to me. Your entire NPOV argument doesn't seem to hold much water. Mlm42 (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is not neutral, nor does it claim to be. A example would be it's statement "In 1945 Taiwan reverted to China," and this statement is clearly disputed by the Taiwan independence people. T-1000 (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. that sentence is talking about Taiwan no longer being under Japanese rule.. its meaning is ambiguous. Mlm42 (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are other examples, another one is on Britannica's China page, where it said "The island province of Taiwan", and whether Taiwan is a province or a country is clearly disputed. Like I said, Britannica never claims to be neutral. T-1000 (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The arguments that Quigley listed were all arguments for not naming the PRC article "China". I agree with this reasoning. But these are not arguments against redirecting the term "China" to the PRC article. To refute a redirect, one should be demonstrating that a significant enough proportion of English-language reliable sources use the term "China" to refer to something other than the PRC. While this may be the case, it hasn't been demonstrated that enough sources exist..

For example, search Google News for "China", and count how many don't mean the PRC. I'm no expert, but I couldn't find a single one. Mlm42 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting China to PRC still implies that PRC is the only legitimate China, which violates NPOV. I don't still what the problem is. NPOV supersedes any other policy, and the redirect page allows "occasional exceptions" like I said. Furthurmore, your search results are biased since they don't take historical usage into account. T-1000 (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Redirecting China to PRC still implies that PRC is the only legitimate China". I disagree. All it implies is that most people who search for "China" are looking for the PRC article. See for example Wikipedia:RNEUTRAL#Neutrality_of_redirects. Mlm42 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Another way of demonstrating how widespread the usage is, is to search Google News for China and Taiwan. These sources are using the terms "China" and "Taiwan" to discuss two different countries. At Wikipedia we are not supposed engage in debates about whether or not there are two countries; but rather to reflect what the reliable sources say (per WP:NPOV). Mlm42 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As discussed here [2], Google searches are not really valid evidence to begin with, since they could be biased or skewed (Like not taking Historic usage into account). This is the case of reliable sources conflicting each other. Countries' recognition are reliable sources, while most recognize the PRC, some recognize the ROC. Furthermore, reliable sources also differ on whether Taiwan is part of PRC or not. So the NPOV issues are unavoidable. T-1000 (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be avoiding my main point, which is that the majority of people who search for "China" are in fact looking for the PRC article. Do you agree, or disagree with this? Mlm42 (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But NPOV supersedes common name. T-1000 (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So we only disagree on the NPOV thing then. Mlm42 (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That you couldn't find a single result mentioning 'China' that does not have to refer to the PRC indeed shows you are not even 10% of an "expert". Already on the first page, I am seeing such results, especially with the phrase "in China", which could be about the land/area/civilisation or the PRC. This has a parallel case in 'New Taipei, Taiwan', for example. Here, Taiwan could mean either the island or the ROC. Based on these two very common cases alone, the case for PRC being the clear primary topic (which is the requirement, I believe) has already failed. I haven't even mentioned historical contexts. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 02:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that comment was directed at me. Yes, some results were ambiguous, but I couldn't find any that definitely did not mean the PRC. I'm not sure which "two very common cases" you're talking about.. Taiwan vs. ROC is not analogous to China vs. PRC, because "China" isn't a precisely defined geographical region.

My point is that among the topics listed in China (disambiguation), when readers search for "China", they are trying to find the modern state, PRC, more often than all other topics combined (which is the requirement in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Of course there is a dispute about whether the PRC includes Taiwan or not, but that's explained in the PRC article. Mlm42 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course you didn't find (nearly) any results that could not at all mean the PRC. My first point still stands: 'China', even in a modern context, does not have to refer to a state. And by the way, I told you two "very common cases": "X in China", and the other is "Y, China". 2) I was not saying that China vs. PRC is completely analogous to Taiwan vs. ROC. I was only using the locator concept ("Z in Taiwan" or "AA, Taiwan") as my parallel. 3)
..."China" isn't a precisely defined geographical region—Perhaps the single greatest reason not to convert to a redirect or move. 4) Again, airy conjectures with no evidence. And even then, WP:RECENTIST will probably work against your cause, because it does not have to be used as an exception in favour of your cause, and historically, the previous China's carry far more weight. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In two minutes first hit on the Economist. And then there is the exam board thing I've linked elsewhere. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes to About box

The about message has been changed from "This article is about the Chinese civilization. For the state commonly known as China, see People's Republic of China. For the state commonly known as Taiwan, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." to "This article is about the Chinese civilization, nation and entity. For the state commonly known as China, see People's Republic of China. For the state commonly known as Taiwan, see Republic of China. For other uses, see China (disambiguation)." Given this article isn't about either nation that has been commonly referred to as China at any point in the last century this new text seems likely to confuse our readers even more than the original text did. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

“Given this article isn't about either nation ...” - nonsense: unfounded, unsourced, etc. The article clear reads “China (Listeni/ˈtʃaɪnə/) is seen variously as an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and a multinational entity...” ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Then they can read it in the article itself. Adding it to the hatnote just makes it more confusing for people who come to this article and expect to be reading about the PRC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? We didn't say it's a state. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nation and state are used interchangeably in common English. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

They are not the same in this context. See the wiktionary entry here. Note meaning #1: "A group of people sharing aspects of language, culture and/or ethnicity". That is clearly what is meant here. LK (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That isn't going to be clear to our readers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

indeed there is a difference between the two words but they are often used interchangably by quality sources. Consider the United Nations. which gives representation to states, not nations. Without looking the words up in a dictionary normal, educated english speakers won't reliably be able to make the distinction you're wanting them to without context. I agree that putting it in the hatnote is confusing. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• So what would we do? Move nation to nation (community of people) and redirect nation to state? Then add a "Nation redirects here. for a kind of community of people, see......"? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• In Nation (disambiguation) it says:

  Nation most commonly refers to the concept of a unified social community.

  Nation may also refer to: A country, .......

Clearly "unified social community" is the primary topic.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because those articles clearly explain what they are about in the lead, so its probably OK. It isn't OK to do here as the word usage isn't clear in common English. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead1's proposal

Eraserhead1 has posted “a” proposal, as he claims, but actually he combine 2 sub-proposals in his proposal:

1. Change the primary topic of China (from civilization & nation topic to disambiguation topic) - the proposal he showed to all;
2. Change the connotation of the civilization & nation topic (from “an ancient civilization extending over a large area in East Asia, a nation and a multinational entity” to “an ancient civilization”-only) - the proposal he hid to others.

Most supports have noticed the first sub-proposal only, so his proposal should be closed, and two sub-proposals should be reposted separately. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• We should not allow people to hide a proposal inside another proposal, because it will confuse others - those who support your shown-subproposal but oppose your hidden-subproposal will be deceived. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This second "sub-proposal" is a minor wording change to the hatnote. I have made no attempt to change the hatnote from how it was at the start of the move discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's only your personal opinion to see it as “a minor wording change”. People who concern the Cross-Strait relations may see it substantial. Your combined proposal actually hurts them. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

OK now lets be honest. 99% of the readership of English Wikipedia (including myself) don't give a damn about cross-strait relations. The fundamental reality is that "China" is used exclusively in a modern context by the western media at least to refer to the PRC. Having this article in the wrong place so that isn't clear is why I have made this move request so we can make it clearer to our readers.

Changing the hatnote text to include other details just makes the current situation even more confusing to non-experts. You really have to recognise how little about China (and to be fair other countries like India) people in the West generally know about. Probably most people are aware that China existed before 1949, but not in what state it existed in, and there was no substantial coverage at all of Chinese or Indian history in my school education.

Now sure we do have to take into account WP:NPOV and that's one of the reasons I am happy to include the Republic of China on the disambiguation page at the top. However having a bunch of text here which confuses our readers even further than having this article here is a serious issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You are talking alot. Real lot. And 95% of your comments do not mention any facts. Is just opinion after opinion. You can fill this page with opinions that sound like facts, but is still not facts. Benjwong (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What evidence should I present to prove that people in my country don't know a great deal about China? I guess the history syllabus would be a start. Here's a more detailed one for the British exams at 16, which gives you the option to study China under Mao. Above I have provided a lot of evidence backed up by different Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And to expand a little, even if we assume all the people in Asia (including Australia) care about cross-strait relations, and even if all the 11% of people in "other" live in Asia 80% of the readership doesn't care about cross-strait relations. See this for the readership stats. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope,

1. You made an essential mistake: you always talk about how much do people in your country know about China, but actually what matters is - how much do people who read the article “China” know about China or how much do those who care “China” know about China. So this is a sophisticated change of the object. Generally when those who “don't know a great deal about China” (as you told us) see a link into China, they won't click it, because they're not interested in knowing too much about China. And generally when someone click into the article China, he/she must be someone interested in some aspect about China, and he/she is likely to know some basic fact about China (e.g. Cross-Strait relations). So don't barely mention some unconvincing precentage (e.g. 99%, etc.) because you have not realized what is the readership stats.
2. What's more, we are talking about your sophisticated proposal - those who support your shown-subproposal but oppose your hidden-subproposal will be deceived. i.e. cheating in the polling. What you hurt are the voters (not the readers), here the proposal should be closed as purpose not clear, and this is not related to the readership stats. If you want to talk about the hatnote issue, go to #Changes to About box, not here. This time you're not changing the object, but the subject.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is a general access project that has to aim its content at a general audience. If Mathematics was only aimed at people which mathematics degrees then that would be bad, even if most people who read the article Mathematics have mathematics degrees (EDIT: See WP:TECHNICAL for a specific guideline on this). With regards to your theory that I want to change the article's content I have been perfectly happy to allow the word territory which is less confusing than nation to appear in the hatnote. I also don't think cross strait relations are a "basic fact" about China, there is very little coverage of it in the Western media. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What the Chinese actually think

I've seen a lot of claims made that 'obviously' the people mean the PRC when they use the word 'China', and hence that is the primary topic. However, I don't believe this is true. If you ask someone who is Chinese, what China means, you get a much more nuanced answer. It is variously used, depending on context, to refer to: the region that has historically been Chinese (the PRC, Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong), the people of that region (e.g. "what will become of China?"), the PRC excluding Tibet and Xinjiang, or less commonly the national entity the PRC. When the Chinese wish to refer to the PRC or the government thereof, they usually use the term 'mainland China'. I know this is completely 'original research' on my part, but I just want to throw it out there, that for the Chinese, having 'China' redirect to the PRC is completely inaccurate, and that the current page more accurately captures the nuanced usage of the term 'China' among the Chinese. This is why the Chinese language wikipedia adopts the same set of pages for 中国 and 中华人民共和国. If the Chinese feel that 'China' refers mainly to the PRC, then surely that would occupy the main page. LK (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"For the Chinese, having 'China' redirect to the PRC is completely inaccurate." Well, if that's true, then obviously it shouldn't redirect there; is that really true? I don't know anything about the Chinese Wikipedia, but they may well have different guidelines about article titles and redirects. I certainly don't think we should be drawing conclusions about what all, or even most, Chinese people think based on what the Chinese language Wikipedia does.. Mlm42 (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What Chinese people here in China think is that China is the PRC which includes Hainan, Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, etc. I didn't get any nuanced answers. I got that same answer each time. But anyway, that's still OR. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia has severe underrepresentation of PRC editors, so it's an extremely poor indicator of "what the Chinese actually think". Also, I see no basis in policy for English Wikipedia to defer decisions to "what the Chinese actually think". Quigley (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Darn right. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, I've rarely heard anyone talk about "mainland China". In China (and in the rest of the world), people refer to the PRC and to mainland China as simply "China". Laurent (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Even in Hong Kong when people speak in English in daily conversations, they call the PRC or the mainland simply as China. But on documents it's almost always "mainland China" or "People's Republic of China". In Cantonese, it's always 大陸 or 內地 instead of 中國. 203.198.26.78 (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak is absolutely mistaken here. Not all Chinese, even from the PRC, believe in "One China". Even for those who do, certainly not all of them believe that PRC is the legitimate sovereign state of China. There is much more variance in opinion within the PRC than one might think. Still, I agree with the rest here that what Chinese think about the usage of the word here should not be our top concern. China as used by Westerners almost exclusively refer to the state PRC. And keep in mind that this is not an attempt to redirect China to PRC, but to place a disambiguation on the page. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the English Wikipedia bases naming of its articles on English-language usage(WP:EN). So how Chinese people and sources use the term "China" really isn't that important. We have to stick with how English-language sources use the term, however unnuanced and inaccurate their usage may be to some.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Anna, what the people in the PRC think is that China refers to the PRC including Taiwan. (Just ask them, "Does China include Taiwan?") You'll get a similar answer from people in Taiwan. 'China' is both mainland and Taiwan. Is it appropriate to redirect only to PRC? Significantly, is anyone here who is Chinese arguing that 'China' should redirect to the PRC? LK (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Correct. They do think that. That's what I said.
• Many argue that it's appropriate to redirect China to PRC with hatnotes to other places.
• I'm not sure anymore. I keep changing my mind and I'm getting sucked into this and I want to bail out. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Laurent, you may not be familiar with the term, but most Chinese use the words 大陆, meaning 'mainland', when refering to the PRC. If they were speaking in English, they would use the term Mainland China. LK (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this which is a British history syllabus, it says you can study "China" under Mao. They are an exam board and they don't call the PRC by its "correct" name. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Who can definitively say what "most Chinese people" think? Who are they? People from PRC? People from ROC? People considering themselves ethnically Chinese? What amounts to "most Chinese?" It seems to me it's everybody's guess. I'm ethically Chinese, from Hong Kong. I don't have one single answer. --Tesscass (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What the chinese think is interesting but it does not make decisions here on wikipedia except when explaining chinese words or concepts. What is much more important in this case, as has been repeated many times is what the English language things. It should be quite obvious to a reader of English that "China" is primarily the common name for the "People's Republic of China", it is often used to refer to the area now occupied by the PRC prior to the existance of the PRC, although this is usually qualified, such as "Song dynasty China". It is also sometimes used to refer to the Republic of China. If that isn't obvious then look at prominent English language newspapers. The New York Times for instances has a famously strict manual of style. They write about China everyday and they use an agreed upon language to do so. They do not choose this language randomly but it evolves over time with carefull consideration. Their language reflects common English language although some quirks can be found. Their language also greatly influences how other publications decide on style issues. The New York Times manual of style says this about the word "China":

China, Standing alone, it means the mainland nation. Use the formal name, the People's Republic of China, in texts and direct quotations only.

I'm not suggesting that we generally adopt the New York Times manual of style as our policy but simply provide this as an illustration of what is overwhelmingly typical in English Language sources. The People's Republic of China is the primary topic for "China" any one disputing that should provide some evidence from a quality source. Evidence which is related to Wikipedia policy. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that with the response you worked hard to produce above that you are not trying to adopt the NYT's (or some variant) policy; even the MOS wording is vague...'mainland nation' could refer to mainland China alone, and perhaps they separate China, Hong Kong, and Macau in most cases. Also. see my comment dated UTC 02:32 19 July for why your case falls short. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing we adopt their policy. I'm claiming that their policy is typical and offer it as an example. Maybe sometimes they refer to Hong Kong and Macau separately but that does not make the wording vague. It should be clear that they mean "The People's Republic of China" when they say "China". I don't understand why you think that is vague. They are generally not talking about "Chinese Civilization" and they are never talking about the Republic of China when they use "China". Such is common in English and that should be respected here to avoid confusion.Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I looked at the comment you mention which you claim disproves what I'm saying. Just because an article which uses the word "China" isn't about the PRC government does not mean that it is not about the PRC. PRC means not only the government but the land occupied by that state and its people and includes a whole lot of things peripherally. The argument still stands. Look at the news with the word "China" and you can almost always replace "China" with "PRC". Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The associated press also has a very similar policy as the one described above. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1) It's vague because the "mainland nation" could mean the mainland or the whole of the PRC. 2) Still in many cases you don't have to replace "China" with PRC. Truly only the mentions of "China" that absolutely mean the PRC (i.e. "China angry over...") count. And don't simply use the news...that's recentist, and what policy or guideline ever directed editors to specifically look at only the news? 3) The AP and NYT are both news organisations, so most of their reporting is going to be current events, so of course they have that policy. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 23:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm using the news as an example because they are extremely prolific and publish little explanations of which words they use and why. You are not seriously arguing that what I am saying about english language usage of the word "China" only applies to newspapers are you. If you are not then don't try to make it sound that way. If you pay attention you'll find that plenty of non-newspaper sources treat the word similarly. It isn't recentist. Whether or not a writer happens to include Hong Kong and Macau when they are talking about China is not relevant either, Those are very, very small teritories with somewhat complicated political relationships with the PRC. It is not a requirement of the naming policies that a term have one and only one EXACT meaning. "China" usually includes Hong Kong and Macau but it doesn't always, the same is true for Taiwan. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the time "China" refers to the "PRC" in some fashion. The two terms don't have to mean the exact same thing all the time, Read Primary Topic and other relevant policies. If you want to argue that the PRC is not the primary topic for China then offer some evidence. The real question is not whether its the primary topic but what we should do about it. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of providing links to more sources, we have Encyclopedia Britinnica, which titles their PRC article as "China", and international organizations the PRC is a member of: the UN uses "China" to describe the PRC, the WTO uses "China" to describe the PRC, the G20, which uses "China" to describe the PRC. The difficulty isn't finding sources that use "China" to describe the PRC. The difficult is finding sources that don't do that. Mlm42 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is that given the cases I said above and the lack of numerical evidence that also considers my cases, you can't say that 'China' overwhelmingly refers to the PRC in overall usage, even if it is the primary usage. That is an airy statement which would waste much of your time to prove; so long as you make airy statements I have no interest in arguing with you.

Mlm42, three of your sources right there are international organisations, where China legally is the PRC. They're out of consideration. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 00:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay.. it appears you are discounting newspapers, encyclopedias, and international organizations because they oppose your point of view.. could you name some sources which support your point of view? Mlm42 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Evaluating Consensus of move request discussion

I've kept up with this discussion and enjoyed taking part in it. It is clear that there is both strong support and strong opposition for Eraserhead1's proposed move. There has also been a strong tendency to debate other, related topics mainly whether or not the PRC is the primary topic for the title "China". When I look over the above discussion I have the impression that despite some strong opposition there is a weak consensus in favor of the proposed move. Its murky though, mostly because of the shear length of the discussion. Additionally, it seems like some of the participants are claiming to support or oppose the proposal but looking at the content of their comments they seem to be expressing support or opposition for something else, like the proposition that the PRC is the primary topic for "China". Is there a consensus in regards to the above move proposal by Eraserhead1? Would the discussion benefit from going on for much more time? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus, just like there had been no consensus for the last five or six years. T-1000 (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think its highly inappropriate to pre-judge any admin decisions made to close the move discussion in attempt to push the move discussion in a certain way. I will be interested to see how the above discussion is closed, when it is closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be consensus on this issue, it's been contentious for too long. I support Metal.lunchbox in making the effort to define and reach consensus. However, I think we may need to involve more editors to get it to stick. I don't think there are any easy answers here. I suggest starting an RfC, and crossposting to a few places, like WP:CHINA, WP:TAIWAN, WP:EASTASIA WP:NAMING, MOS:NAME. At the end, we should generate a Manual of Style document about how to use the term 'China', similar to the MOS documents about Ireland-related articles, and Poland-related articles. LK (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Leaving it open and using an RFC for more input is a good idea.

By my reading there is a consensus, possibly weak depending on how the closer values policy vs numbers, that the current arrangement isn't desirable. Some people have opposed the question because it leads to a dab solution instead of the PRC as primary topic. Those opposes should not be read as supporting the status quo. If that is the outcome, we need guidance on how to move forward. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTVOTE and WP:POLICY guidelines clearly overrides numbers unless they are significantly higher and make a good case of how the guideline doesn't apply. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)