Wikipedia

Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 11

< Talk:Chinese civilization
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Heilme in topic Suggestion: Make China (disambiguation) page as the main page for "China"
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --WinHunter (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make China (disambiguation) page as the main page for "China"

Latest comment: 18 years ago167 comments32 people in discussion

So everyone who types "China" in the Search box will be directed to the disambiguation page, instead of being automatically directed to the Chinese civilization page now. Gives all users a choice (prevent confusion; since they are many different uses and/or meanings of "China") and more user-friendly. Heilme 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China is most commonly known as "China". At the same time, when someone mentions China, most of the time they would refer to the "People's Republic of China". So why can't we merge the two together? I understand that there is the Republic of China political sensitivity, but there are other examples in Wikipedia such as Cyprus and Moldova that have similar political sensitivity but they can overcome this problem. I will discuss in detail the two examples.

  • Cyprus - Cyprus is actually not one united nation. It is divided into two separately controlled areas, each one independent from the other. There is the southern part of Cyprus (formally known as the Republic of Cyprus) - which is the most internationally recognized one, and which is what the link Cyprus directly brings you to. But there is also another part of Cyprus, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the northern part of the island, that is recognized only by Turkey. So the Cyprus case is very similar to Chinese political situation. But when anyone click the link Cyprus, the user is directly brought to the Republic of Cyprus (the most recognized one).
  • Moldova - Similarly, Moldova is divided into two nations. The western part is the recognized Republic of Moldova, while the eastern part is the unrecognized Transnistria (they have been de facto independent since 1990). Again this is similar to the Chinese political case. But the link Moldova assumes and directs the user towards the Republic of Moldova page (the most recognized one).

So similarly, why can we not have the China page directly links to the most recognized People's Republic of China, just like Cyprus brings you to Republic of Cyprus (forgetting the Turkish Republic) and the Moldova page brings you to the Republic of Moldova (forgetting the Transnistria). PS: Korea is a different case because both North Korea and South Korea are equally well represented internationally (and at the same time, i.e. a third country sees no diplomatic difficulty in recognizing both South Korea and North Korea at the same time - just like the former East Germany and West Germany). -- Heilme 03:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason is simple - China should be merged with both People's Republic of China as well as Republic of China. But good luck getting that to happen. Hong Qi Gong 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Most people who are looking for the People's Republic of China when entering China in the search box may be confused to find that the China page does not direct them to the PRC page (although the disambugation note is there...which some people never want to read for some reason). Then we can have a Republic of China link as a header note in the Taiwan and People's Republic of China pages in case somebody is looking for them instead. Heilme 04:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And HongQi Gong, I don't understand what you are trying to say. I only meant to combine the two pages based on popularity of names (China most popularly refers to PRC and vice versa) and other existing examples in Cyprus and Moldova page. No politics here. Heilme 04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you are politically biased, but seemingly unaware of it. It is a matter of political opinion whether or not Taiwan is part of China, and as such, whether or not an entry on China should also include information on Taiwan and the Republic of China. I would think it only makes sense that Republic of China be merged into China also, if People's Republic of China is merged into China. Anyway, I think there was already a discussion on this somewhere. It's in either China, People's Republic of China, or Republic of China. Hong Qi Gong 04:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That's what I am saying and suggesting towards the end. Merge People's Republic of China and Republic of China into China together. But the main article of China would be about the PRC because it more commonly referred to as so, while at the top header (above the very first introductory paragraph), we can possibly write a short note "For another modern state most commonly known as Taiwan, see Republic of China. Other uses of China (disambiguation)". Heilme 04:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The article on China is about the Chinese civilization, as the China today is divided into the PRC (aka mainland China) and the ROC (aka Taiwan). The split between the two articles signifies the split of China between the PRC and ROC today. The People's Republic of China might be commonly known as just China, but it's also known as simply PRC. Same thing goes for Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan. I do not recommend this article to be merged with China, but I guess you can arguably rename China to Chinese civilization, but that's a unnecessary as China already implies a civilization (albeit being politically split today). There's also the One-China policy that allows a country to have diplomatic relations with either the ROC or the PRC, but never both.--Ryz05 t 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How about just to make it clearer, the China (disambiguation) page should be made as the main page of "China". There are many uses and/or meanings of "China" so I guess we can divide China into many categories with different links. Therefore, any user who types "China" in the Search box and click Go, the user will be brought towards the China (disambiguation) page and this will reduce confusion from many users. Some user may not expect to be directed to the Chinese civilization, as they are now, when they put "China" in the search box. Some users may expect to be directed to the PRC or ROC, or China city (in China, Maine) websites, and they may be surprised that they are brought to Chinese civilization website. Although there is a clear disambiguation statement written at the very top of the introductory paragraph of the China page right now, I wonder how many people are actually noticing that or even bother to read that. Again, just for clarity, I suggest making the China (disambiguation) page into China main page. So once people search for China, then they can decide which "China" they refer to more easily. Right now, I don't think many people would expect to be directed to the Chinese civilization when they click to China page. So please consider this. Heilme 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And then, as Ryz05 suggested, in the China (disambiguation) page (supposedly now the main page of "China"), we can rename the current China page which is about the Chinese civilization into a new page called the Chinese civilization. I think that's best. Heilme 19:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
We can direct people to the disambiguation page and let them choose as Heilme mentioned. China (disambiguation) now looks different because I edited it to make it easier to recognize the political split. For now, we can just keep the name China as opposed to Chinese civilization. When the two states (PRC and ROC) unify eventually, we can then just call it China and have a new page on Chinese civilization.--Ryz05 t 22:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For now, I am OK with keeping the name China for the Chinese civilization. But, I am not clear yet on whether you've agreed to make all users be directed to China (disambiguation) page when they type "China" in the search box. Because right now, everyone is automatically directed to the Chinese civilization page when they type "China" in the search box, and not everyone may be expecting for this to happen. For the sake of clarity too. Heilme 01:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any merger. The pages are fine where it is - China describes the civilisation, BOTH the ROC and the PRC, and meanwhile, one imagines that "Tibet" is not really a part of China, nor is Xinjiang (intermittent control, was really a vassal territory). It is part of the PRC state, which is something entirely different. As for "When the two states (PRC and ROC) unify eventually", well, I'm not too sure about that. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 02:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, now you're being political about it. I do not want politics here. By the way, are you opposing the merger of China with People's Republic of China, or my latest suggestion which is making China (disambiguation) page the main page where everyone should be directed to when they type "China" in the search box? Heilme 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

... Why is Tibet or xinjiang not a part of China, the civilisation? If your reason is that their cultures did not developed from a different source to the Chinese civilisation, then the only thing that's left in "China" is the Yellow River valley. If you are going to argue "intermittent political control", then let's also exclude Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and also Shanghai, Chongqing, Shandong, and Manchuria, for that matter.
It seems as soon as you say anything about China someone is going to jump up and start advocating tearing the country to pieces - politically or culturally. --Sumple (Talk) 04:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
They are autonomous regions for a region, I would think (Hong Kong is a different matter), namely because Xinjiang for example is associated with the Uyghurs, Tibet with the Tibetans, etc. I oppose both suggestions. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Elle's comments above are ignorant and self-contradictory (a sign of intellectual weakness in his/her argument). If as according to Elle, the Chinese civilization includes "BOTH the ROC and the PRC," then by logical deduction the Chinese civilization includes Tibet as well, because Tibet is claimed, occupied and administered by the PRC as part of the same state. Naus 05:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe that either China should directly go to a China disambiguation page (per Heilme's suggestion), or China should directly go to the PRC page (as according to Wikipedia's common-use policy). The current setup is redundant and confusing. The header text in italics for the current China page is too small and easily skipped, especially for people unfamiliar with China who are trying to find some information regarding the modern country. Also the PRC article is a Featured Article, and the Chinese civilization article is poorly organized, poorly written and poorly sourced. The current Chinese civilization article isn't even a genuine civilization article, it's actually just a country article that replaces the word "PRC" with "China" (much of its content is identical with the PRC article). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an arena for the political agendas of a few vocal minorities. Reputed encyclopedias like the Britannica all have China = PRC, while also having a separate Taiwan, R.O.C article for clarification. Naus 05:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Why are you being so hostile? I never attacked you. I just strongly disagree with any merger. Please be civil. The difference is that Tibet is a political entity that does not strongly identify with a central Chinese government. The ROC and PRC are however competitors for a central Chinese government, because for example, the ROC Constitution still says the official capital is Nanjing. PRC and the ROC fought in a civil war to reunify China - there are reunification elements of both sides - Tibet has no such element. This goes for Xinjiang. The current setup is not "too confusing", because politics often doesn't mean what it says, (de jure versus de facto) and is inherently difficult to follow. Just because the major encyclopedias do it, doesn't mean we should. These encyclopedias are often insensitive, full of systemic bias and do not understand the intracacies of the issue at hand. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. China is a geographical (and cultural) entity, unlike PRC and ROC which are political entities. "It's a badly-written article" does not constitute a valid reason for merging or deletion. In addition, if people are uncertain of the difference between China and PRC, it is the duty of an encyclopedia to make that difference known to them, instead of perpetrating a misconception, a lie even. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|e|Chugoku Banzai! 05:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Get your facts straight first before accusing others of lying or perpetrating misconceptions. The only cultural and geographical entity of China is Mainland China (also referred as Continental China). America is also a geographical entity, and as consequence, America links to a disambiguation page and not to the American continents. The current chaos is unprofessional (no other published encyclopedia has the China entry referring only to the "Chinese civilization") and it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy of common names. The majority of editors here do not even know what constitutes "Chinese civilization," hence part of the reason why the Chinese civilization article is so poorly organized and written. The way the China article is right now can be easily replaced by simply expanding on the history and culture sections of the PRC article. Naus 06:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Please be civil. Please stop accusing others of being ignorant, and assume good faith. China is not two continents, either. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

EVERYONE!!! Please stop this "fight". I am getting the idea that some people still think I am proposing the merging of China with the People's Republic of China. THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE. Too much political uncertainties for an encyclopedia!!! What I am proposing now instead is to make the China (disambiguation) page as the main page for China. Right now, everyone who types "China" in the Search box are automatically directed to the Chinese civilization page. This may not be what every user expects. Therefore, I suggest making the China (disambiguation) page to become the page where everyone should be directed to when they type "China" in the Search box. There is NO POLITICS here. Just for clarity and it's more user-friendly!!! Heilme 07:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree to Heilme's above comment and recommended action. Hunter 07:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Question: are you proposing a technical exception or are you proposing a page move? --Jiang 08:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I am proposing a page move. I don't know exactly. I have never done this before. But what I want in the net result is that all users typing "China" in the Search box will be directed to China (disambiguation) page. I don't know how exactly that is done though. I will leave it to more experienced Wikipedians here. Help me thanks. Heilme 08:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
But I was also thinking. Should we make China -> China (disambiguation), then we need to rename the Chinese civilization page as Chinese civilization. China should no longer "exclusively" represent Chinese civilization. It's going to be directed to the disambiguation page. Understand what I mean? Heilme 09:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A heavily trafficked page such as China should never be made into a disambiguation page. We make disambiguation pages for mutually exclusive entities, such as Georgia the U.S. state and Georgia the independent state, but here we are really only dealing with differing interpretations and definitions of the same entity, not wholly different entities with the same name. If we spun off pages everytime people had a major disagreement on a definition, then we would be inviting many POV forks. It would be better to explain the complexities within the confines of the same article.

Top-level disambiguations (such as the one posted at the top of China) are intended for articles with one article taking priority or prominence over the others. In this case, the content of the China article, which should not only be limited to the "civilization" but the country (physically, economically, demographically, etc) as a whole, should take precedence. Our priority should be providing a better explanation in that article to make the situation less confusing: readers would be better served if they could read up on an entire section on the differing modern definitions of "China" rather than if they were given a list possible terms - including those of some small towns in America they were never looking for - and had to figure out for themselves, by clicking, why two similar sounding names "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" were being listed in succession.

As for a technical exception, I think it would be possible (I'm not expert or authority on this matter), but I think it would be hard to justify. --Jiang 16:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • If America is a disambiguation page, then there is no reason why China is not also. The need to disambiguate China is even more pertinent than America, given the existence of 2 governing entities (PRC and ROC), and a commonly used American English noun "china." 128.135.103.215 17:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Jiang, I think you are quite right that we should expand the Chinese civilization article to include other topics such as the country (physically, economically, demographically) although some aspects have been covered right now. We should also try to explain better in the Chinese civilization article about common modern uses of "China" (and maybe about the modern political split) to minimize confusion among readers. However, I still do think the need to direct China to the China (disambiguation) page. Clearly, there are two completely distinct political entities that users might be confused on: the PRC and the ROC (this is similar to your Georgia (U.S. state) vs Georgia (Caucasus country)). We can describe adequately in the disambiguation page, so people are clear, and it's just one more click away before they are directed to the page they want. I am sure that even for a heavily-trafficked page such as "China", this should not be a big issue. The problem is for now, how many people do you think would expect to be directed exclusively to the Chinese civilization when they search for "China"? Given all the major news and media cover, it's more likely to think that's not the case. Furthermore, as I mentioned, some careless Wikipedians may skip the top disambiguation header sentence in the China page and not realize it is always there. Are we not supposed to make Wikipedia more user-friendly? In addition, I have never seen nor heard anyone said "China" when they meant "Chinese civilization". Do you? Does anyone here do that? They would say it outright "Chinese civilization". Unless they intend to confuse the listener. Heilme 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China are not be the two mutually exclusive entities being disambiguated: while people may use "China" to exclusively refer to the PRC, no one (in our readership, at least) will use it to exclusively refer to the ROC (country template speaking). However, there are a number of cases where "China" means more than the PRC, so hence, the need for a seperate article and dab page. The top level dab is just a single barrier to avoiding confusion. As I have just suggested, a thorough and focused discussion on any ambiguities over the term "China" should be explained at the beginning of the article, serving as another barrier to avoiding confusion. After all, what do people go to article for - just to look at the pictures? Disambiguation pages are not designed to contain large amount of text and I do not see precedent for it (the standard format is bullet point). The concern that users going to "China" and not wanting to read about the Chinese civilization will not be an issue if we edit the article to be more inclusive of topics related to China. --Jiang 05:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how you are going to discuss all of the ambiguities over the term "China" in the current China (Chinese civilization) article? I am assuming by now that "China" can mean something more beyond that of the PRC and the ROC, and includes definition as China (porcelain) and so on. How are you going to discuss the ambiguities of China (porcelain) in the Chinese civilization article? You can't. And do not invoke the Common-Name convention. If you do invoke it, then China = PRC. You can only went as far to disambiguate the PRC and ROC in the civilization article which the China (disambiguation) page has quite clearly done with its short description of each state. Furthermore, it should take no more than 5 seconds for users to make up their mind when they are directed to the disambiguation page. It's easy to use bullet-point style (with short description), and just one more click away...In fact, I see the Chinese civilization page as redundant and completely unnecessary. I view it as a "disambiguation page" in itself but in the super extra-long style. Do we really need the Chinese civilization page by the way? Why is no one else interested in making a French civilization, German civilization, Japanese civilization etcetera pages?? We can merge the content of all those Chinese civilization pages into the History of China, Culture of China and others. In fact, the contents are already the same. Heilme 06:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

All this is under the assumption that "China" must remain limited in scope to "Chinese civilization" in the league of Ancient Rome, which you conceded does not need to be. It is certainly possible to describe ambiguities within the same article, as the current states, "The term "China" can narrowly mean China proper or, often, China proper and Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang, a combination essentially coterminous with the 20th and 21st century political entity China; the boundaries between these regions do not necessarily follow provincial boundaries. In many contexts, "China" is commonly used to refer to the People's Republic of China or mainland China, while "Taiwan" is used to refer to the Republic of China. Informally, in economic or business contexts, "the Greater China region" (大中華地區) refers to Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan." So the definitions we can mention are, in increasing inclusitivity: China proper, mainland China, mainland China + HK + MO, mainland China + HK + MO + TW, mainland China + HK + MO + TW + outer Mongolia + Tuva + northern Burma, or the entire Chinese sphere of influence as it existed. The porcelin is not relevant here: we are interested in geo-political entities.

So you agree to say the least that the name "Chinese civilization" itself is misleading. And that's why we need the disambiguation page. I think you are trying to over-stretch the limit of the meaning of "China". China proper? Mainland China? Greater China? I think those 3 are obviously different from just "China", literally. Heilme 07:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
China can mean either China proper, mainland China, or Greater China, but they are varying definitions of what is essentially the same thing. We cannot create a new article and pop up a disambiguation page each time someone disagrees on the meaning of something. This would turn Wikipedia into a bunch of disambiguation pages followed by a bunch of POV forks. When meanings differ on the same topic, we limit ourselves to the same article.--Jiang 07:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Now, but we also agree that "China" can also mean PRC or ROC in addition to China proper, mainland CHina, or Greater China (which in my POV the last three are not really true). So, is the PRC and ROC varying definitions of what is essentially the same thing? Heilme 07:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing about disambiguation pages is that we do not want people to visit them. They are designed for readers who are misdirected, and not part of an actual encyclopedia to convey any more information than is necessary to arrive at the relevant article. Without conveying more information, the layman will not know the difference between the "People's Republic of China" and the "Republic of China" or than a difference exists at all. If we want to convey information, what is wrong with doing so in an article?

And what is meant by the relevant article here? You are assuming that users would prefer to read all those lengthy article and teach themselves about China proper, mainland China and so on. We can teach the layman the difference between the PRC and the ROC in the disambiguation page if we had already said the PRC is a state that governs mainland China, while the ROC is a state that governs Taiwan island. If the layman want more detail, then please click it. Heilme 07:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There is always the top-level disambiguation if users do not want to read through everything. Disambiguation pages are not for "teaching"; they are for redirecting. If detail within an article is an issue, then we can start general and go into detail later.--Jiang 07:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the content in China is irrelevant or redundant. Surely, a reference to Han Wudi as Emperor of "China" should not have to do with Communists. --Jiang 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what aspects of the current Chinese civilization page that cannot be divided and merged with Culture of China, History of China, Religion of China, Geography of China. After all, aren't these smaller sub-sections on China (Culture, History, Religion etc) describing the Chinese civilization in detail in itself?? Heilme 07:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
wikipedia:summary style can work wonders. --Jiang
So, it's just a summarizing article and can indeed be merged if one has the will. Heilme 07:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Destroying summary style would mean splitting, not merging. I don't see why an article on China, the civilization included, should not exist. Many things (e.g. "culture" articles) can be split into details, but are not. --Jiang 08:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well technically it's split and merge as no information is lost. It should not exist because there is no reason for it to exist. It's information repeated again and again and again, summary or long-form, ok whatever. Look at other examples: France, Japan, Germany etcetera. Do they have a "civilization" article? Why not? Because there are links about history, culture, geography, and religion when users went to the main page. Similarly, when users go to the PRC site, there is plentiful of links to History of China (not only about the Commnunists), Culture of China, mainland China, China proper, and so on. If a use visit the ROC article, then they have links to Culture of Taiwan etcetera. We don't need to make a special summarizing article on China, civilization included. It's simply not necessary. Heilme 08:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Information exists in summary style so that it is present in one place, even though the individual sections are presented in more detail elsewhere. It is convenient for cultural-historical topics. I don't see how this is useless. If we nixed the China page and replaced it with a disambiguation page leading to PRC and ROC, I dont see how mentions of Qin Shihuang being the first emperor of China or China having a long-standing cultural influence on Korea could link to either. --Jiang 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to talk about Taiwan in the current China page, then Wikipedia is implying that Taiwan is a part of China. This might be provocating to at least 30% of the Taiwanese population who advocates Taiwanese independence and these people (with their own respectable opinion) maintains that there is a "separate" cultural (and etcetera) identity of Taiwan vs China. So, this might be politically biased in itself. However, if you want to remove any discussion about Taiwan in the current China page, then it's just talking about mainland China and we already have articles on that. So I still say that we direct users to disambiguation page where they can choose between PRC and ROC (assuming these are the 2 top choices for a search on "China"). Then they can click on PRC or ROC article and read more about the geography, culture, history, demographics etcetera of the particular territory (and the people included) each state is governing right now. Unless you think that the "Taiwan is a part of China" statement is NPOV. And then once this is done, we can talk more about the history of China in more general terms (since the time of Qin Shihuang) in the History section of the PRC page. Right now, the History section of the PRC page talks about 1949-now. I don't think that's fair. It should talk more about the history of the territory that the PRC is governing right now as opposed to only mentioning the history of the PRC itself (which really would be political history as opposed to merely history. Heilme 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The article makes no statement of fact that "Taiwan is part of China". According to the NPOV guidlines, NPOV involves making statements of position, not statements of fact. It is very clear that this is what the current China article accomplishes in describing the issue of Taiwan. Mentioning that certain political factions believe Taiwan is a part of China does not automatically make Taiwan a part of China, so I don't see your point. The "history" section of the PRC page should not extend before its founding because the article is titled "People's Republic of China", not "China". Having an article on Qin Shihuang linking to "People's Republic of China" would be highly misleading, not to mention absurd. Likewise, the article on the Williamite war in Ireland links to Ireland, not Republic of Ireland.--Jiang 12:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Btw, if you look at the History section of France, Japan etcetera, they did not talk exclusively about the history of the founding of the current incumbent government. They talk about the the history (and other details such as culture, religion etc) of the territory they are governing right now. Why can't we do the same to the PRC? Then there is no need for the China ("Chinese civilization") page any longer. We can then summarize the history of PRC article in the current History section of the PRC page and add more History of China in general terms. It's strange that if you look at History section of the PRC page, there is actually a Main Article link at the top to the History of China but the article itself does not talk about it at all. It instead begins with 1949 and onwards. Heilme 23:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That is because the content at France does not reside at French Fifth Republic and Japan is a historically contiguous entity. What does this have to do with creating a dab page? --Jiang 12:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
But the French Republic page will direct to the France page. So why doesn't the History section of France talk only about the French Republic which really is 1789-1803 (First French Republic), and then 1848-1850 (Second French Republic), and then 1870-now (Third, Fourth and Fifth French Republic). We should direct to the dab page because if we expand the article on the PRC and ROC to include history, culture etcetera of the territory and the people that each state rule, then there is no need for the Chinese civilization page anymore. The content can be (split and) merged. Heilme 19:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Direct "China" to China (disambiguation) instead of Chinese civilization (current setting)?

  • Support - I think it's going to clarify many things, reduce confusion to a minimum among users, and therefore more user-friendly. When all users are directed to China (disambiguation) page upon entering "China" in the Search box, they would have the options to whether they want to log on to People's Republic of China site, or Republic of China site, or China, Maine site, or whatever other meanings of "China" is. No politics attached. All for the sake of better Wikipedia. Heilme 08:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support - per Heilme and my comments above. If America goes to a disambiguation page, so should China. Naus 08:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - it make things more clear to everyone who use Wikipedia. Hunter 08:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I'm a bit indifferent because I think anyone who is looking for information about PRC (the state/country) can easily get here from the China page anyway. Still, the current situation is confusing for a first time user. --Sumple (Talk) 10:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • very strong WTF?! - There's more than one China now???? 87.97.33.112 11:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    More than one Chinese state. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nobody is looking for "China, Maine" when someone searches for "China". What they are looking for is the Chinese civilisation page. Hong Qi Gong 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Readers who go to Rome expect to read about the capital of modern Italy and not the Roman civilization. The same applies for China. This is encylopedic convention. 128.135.103.215 17:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    I wasn't. I was looking for 'PRC'. In my mind 'China' is very clearly defined. So much so that I never even heard of 'PRC'. I call that 'China'. DirkvdM 10:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It should redirect to PRC, or the current article, but a term as important as China should not go to a dab page. Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? That answer is clearly PRC. The current setup is a runnerup choice because so many people of politics but a dab page is not a good idea. SchmuckyTheCat 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Actually the PRC article is supposed to be (or should be) more on the PRC government itself, so I would think that when someone searches for "China", the person wants the Chinese civilisation article. Hong Qi Gong 15:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    For that I disagree, I believe that most people equate China to PRC. Hunter 15:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I also disagree with Hong Qi Gong's statement. Most people equate China to the modern nation-state which has ties to the Chinese civilization, but not directly to the Chinese civilization. This is the same as most people associating Mexico to the United Mexican States, and not to Mexican civilizations. 128.135.103.215 16:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons given above. And I don't think readers clearly intend to read about the PRC when they search for China: there is no evidence that politics trumps both history and culture. --Jiang 16:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Or basic geography, population, and demographics, for that matter - that's what I think people are looking for when they search for "China". And personally, I think the PRC article needs to be trimmed to be more restricted to the government itself. Hong Qi Gong 16:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    Obviously what I think and what you think are clearly different, so how do you reconcile those differences? Repeating what you think 10,000 times does not make it any more correct. Also, the PRC article absolutely does not need to be trimmed, the PRC article is not called the "Government of PRC" article, it is specifically about the nation-state of the People's Republic of China, which as you know very well also claims and acts as the modern successor state of the Chinese civilization. The vast majority of country articles direct to the modern nation-state and only briefly touch upon the civilizational aspects, why is China held to a different standard? The issue isn't about what "readers clearly intent to read," but about basic consistency. It can easily be argued that readers actually intend to read about the PRC and not Chinese civilization, just like readers who go to Rome intend to read about the capital of modern Italy and not the Roman civilization. It is convention. If America goes to a disambiguation page, then there is no objective reason why China should not either. 128.135.103.215 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    The current voting is to redirect China to the China (disambiguation) page, not PRC. Hunter 16:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keep it the way it is for now, mostly because it's not a good idea to have a disambiguation page pop up whenever someone types in China. --Ryz05 t 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I change my opposition to neutral. I still feel a little uneasy about a search for "China" turning up a disambiguation page, because most people (I think) type "China" to find out more about the country. But directing it to the disambiguation page sounds like a good idea, as the word "China" commonly refers to the PRC, the civilization, or the porcelain. In the future, however, if the PRC reunifies with the ROC (Taiwan), I expect a search for "China" to be directed to the article on China and have a new article called Chinese civilization created.--Ryz05 t 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that is simply not how things work on Wikipedia and other encyclopedias. PRC is the successor state of more than just 50/60 years of events. Go search Cuba, is the Cuba article limited to just post-1959 Communist Cuba? No, it's not. Yet the bulk of the article and the infobox used for Cuba refers to the Communist government (socialist republic). In fact, no published encyclopedia follows your ideal. Every established encyclopedia has China = PRC (you look up China, and you get the PRC country article with a history section that expands 5000 years). You are using an arbitrary constriction against the PRC, and it's getting pretty darn POV and politically biased. 128.135.103.215 02:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's make a difference between government and country (as in nation-state) here. "China" has always existed as it was since proclaimed in 220 B.C. by Qin Shihuang. The concept of "China" is therefore constant and unchanging in time. The government of "China" however, keeps changing over the past thousand years. Contemporarily, PRC deserves to be the successor-state of "China". The modern history of France for instance actually belongs to the so-called Fifth Republic of France. But the history of France does not go only about 30 years ago when the Fifth Republic was founded. It goes as historical record can tell. Heilme 02:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, except that there are not multiple states that claim to be France. Neither is there a divide Cuba. In this case you clearly have the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. The other encyclopedias are systemically biased, and that's why we have Wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedia has the largest encyclopedic coverage of Chinese culture, which clearly explains it. It's not POV, the PRC being the only China argument is the ROC. We are not to decide which is China and which is not, which would be itself a POV. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at the examples of Cyprus and Moldova? Cyprus is divided into north and south, both are governing independently, both do not recognize each other.....same with Moldova. Furthermore, this is about redirecting to CHina (disambiguation). As you said, there are more than one states bearing the name "China" right now. Therefore, the need to redirect to disambiguation. Heilme 23:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because they bear the name of China does not mean it requires disambiguation. China is the overarching concept that unifies all the other articles. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hong Qi Gong and Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) (and other users in doubt here), could you tell me one reason why do you think everyone is looking for the Chinese civilization page when they search for "China". I think that's purely personal POV and does not represent the entire Wikipedian community (nor perhaps even the majority of the plane't population). In fact, if you want to argue based on Common-Name policy, then it is more likely for most users to meant the People's Republic of China when they searched for "China". That's how many media, newspaper, books refer to. For my example, I have read many news and magazines such as the BBC, CNN, The Guardian, Financial Times, Washington Post, New York Times, ChannelNewsAsia, even Economics textbook for my classes....all of them refer to the "People's Republic of China" for the word "China", never the Chinese civilization. If that's the case, they will clearly type in print "Chinese civilization". I think Wikipedia is being special about this. But then again, I understand the political sensitivity. Instead, I suggest we direct all users to China (disambiguation) page. Heilme 20:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hold on, the vote here is whether to redirect searches for "China" to the Chinese civilisation page or to a disambiguation page. I'm saying what I'm saying because I think when people search for "China" on wikipedia, they aren't searching for anything like "China, Maine". And yes, I'm speaking completely from my own POV when I say that people want the Chinese civilisation page when they search for "China". But then again, so are you, when you say that they are looking for the PRC page. Look at all the news sources you cited - all western sources except for Channel News Asia, which might as well be a western source as well since it's in English and based in Singapore. The Chinese civilisation page contains information on everything from geography to climate, from economy to demographics, etc etc. That's what I think people are looking for when they search for "China". Hong Qi Gong 15:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The vote here is CHina -> China (disambiguation), not the PRC (too politically sensitive). So, why don't you give me an article from any media or newspaper (western or eastern whatever), that says China refers to the Chinese civilization. When people search for "China", they would want to know the geography, demographics, economy yes that's true. But they can do that when they go to the PRC (about mainland's stuff) or the ROC (about Taiwan's stuff). The current setup implies that Taiwan is a part of China btw, since most Taiwan independence advocates claim that Taiwanese history and culture (and civilization) is different from the mainland. I say let the users choose what options they want. Most of the time it's either PRC or ROC. Then they can find out more about the geography, economy, history, culture of the territory that each of these 2 separate states are currently governing. Otherwise, if you lump talking about Taiwan in your China page, then this implies Taiwan is a part of China. Heilme 23:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have actually never said that when people search for "China", they want to read about Chinese civilisation. I've said that what they want is the Chinese civilisation page, which, again, contains everything from geography to climate to economy to demographics. And I'm saying this with the thought that I think the PRC page should be trimmed to be more specific to the government. That is something I've said very early on. But I think what you're really objecting to here is not so much that you think people infer PRC when they think "China", but more that you think the Chinese civilisation page implies Taiwan is part of China. Have you actually read the Chinese civilisation page? It is very clear on where Taiwan and the ROC stand. It discusses the history and the current on-going cross-straits political conflict. Hong Qi Gong 04:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, you did say that when people search for "China", they are looking for the Chinese civilization. You should remember the reason why you oppose this suggestion (scroll above to see you own words). On the contrary, I think we should expand the current PRC article not to just to be specific to the government but also the territory and the people that the PRC is ruling right now. Heilme 20:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Where exactly did I say that I think people want to read about Chinese civilisation when they search for "China"? I've kept saying that what they're looking for is the Chinese civilisation page. Hong Qi Gong 15:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What? If I'm not wrong, those two phrases (however you re-word it) mean the same thing. You are implying that people want to be reading for the Chinese civilization when you said that is what they are looking for. Heilme 01:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - One more thing. I think some people who clearly possess political bias against PRC (guess who) should stop thinking of politics and advancing their own personal viewpoints. There are millions who are using Wikipedia, and we are not the few exclusive frequent users roaming the "China"-related pages. Some of us are Chinese and know what we are looking for when we search for "China". How about those who are non-Chinese?? Do you dare speak for them and represent their opinions? We must think for the benefit of the majority of the Wikipedia and/or online population. One way to do this is to be consistent with what most major media (such as the BBC, CNN etc which are supposedly well-established and NPOV). However, minus the political sensitivity, I really do think it's wise to direct "China" to the China (disambiguation) page. From how most news and media reports it, I dare say that majority people meant the PRC when they searched for "China". However, some user here have also made a good argument saying that some people may also be looking for the Chinese civilization when they typed "China". That's fine. Some people might even be looking for the Republic of China when they searched for "China". Some art students may also be looking for China (porcelain) when they searched for "China". I urge everyone here not to think and advance their own thought and/or cause (political or personal, etc). Think for the overall benefit of Wikipedia, think about what other users (and majority of people) would do. Heilme 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am a communist. And yet, I strongly oppose merging it with the PRC. Isn't ironic to accuse me of bias in this sense? For example, "immigrants from China" in articles, which often links to, means that they came from China, in which the state does not matter. Mainstream point of view is not the neutral point of view. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was not proposing to merge China with PRC anymore. It's China -> China (disambiguation). May I know what is NPOV in this case? That China is Chinese civilization? Heilme 23:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As those users such as Ryz05, who think that because "China" is a frequently-searched page (again that is unproven although with all news on China nowadays that may be the case) and therefore it is bothersome and "bad" for making "China" -> China (disambiguation) page, I would think otherwise. Even if we direct all users to China (disambiguation) page, they have the options (and the options are described very clearly), and IT IS JUST ONE MORE CLICK AWAY. How can that be bothersome? Sorry for using CAPS, no offend. Heilme 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The PRC exercises territorial sovereignty over the vast majority of China - it is "China" in the political sense. Typically, political entities define boundaries and thus define contemporary references to nations (peoples, cultures, etc.) and states. If the title "China" is to refer to anything contemporary, it should be the PRC - that is, "China" should refer to the presiding nation-state (all things included). There are literally a handful of situations in the world where this terminology fails us, but this is not one of them because we have both a nation and a state. This whole issue of redirecting to Chinese civilization looks and smells like a red herring. If the ROC and PRC were united, would this debate really be happening? Maybe - because this is Wikipedia afterall - but that's not a reason to overwrite such a widespread and useful convention. --Vector4F 02:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We have a nation and several states (Hong Kong is really almost separate, but has insidious influence from the PRC), one of them considering separation. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly what I thought. But since this is Wikipedia, we are supposed to inform and educate all users. And we want to let them know that there are at least 3 equally important "concepts" (sort of) of the term "China" in contemporary and modern sense. They are: Chinese civilization, PRC, Republic of China. Therefore, redirecting to disambiguation, in my opinion, might be most helpful in minimizing confusion and helping to educate all users. Heilme 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • IMO, that is unhelpful because it does not give a "central" article in which to correlate the situation with. The reader shouldn't have to choose between 3 separate articles - but rather one article (what is China?), that links to the other concepts. China is the umbrella term that includes all things linked to, including the ROC and the PRC. A mere disambiguation page cannot explain that. It is not a mere perchance that, "oh! They both have China in their names!". Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think it should go to the PRC page or remain where it is, as per reasons listed above. TastyCakes 05:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with Heilme. I think most people searching for "China" expect to find an article about a country, and not about some civilisation like Mesoamerica or something. The only reason, in my opinion, why the article about the PRC should not be called simply "China" is the existence of another Chinese state: the ROC on Taiwan. Because of that, I oppose equating China with PRC until the status of Taiwan is resolved one way or another. But I agree that the PRC article should be the first option for somebody typing "China" in the search box. Two options seem reasonable to me. One is Heilme's proposal of directing the user to the disambiguation page. I think that is a good idea. Another possibility I would also find acceptable is to make "China" redirect to PRC and add a line at the beginning saying China redirects here. For other uses of the name see China (disambiguation). This would still acknowledge that the name "China" can be used in other ways, while accounting for the fact that probably most people searching for China will be interested in the modern nation state of the People's Republic of China. --AngelRiesgo 14:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Then please enlighten me what the purpose of the China article is besides being the civilizational concept of China (BTW, this is what the PRC header says for the China article)? If China is a country article as your comment implies, then China should redirect to PRC and the PRC article's history section should be expanded. You can't have it both ways. Intsokzen 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is intended as a "general" article on China. The PRC has clearly defined borders that do not include Taiwan and some other territories; the concept of "China" does not. "Country" (as I am using the term) does not have to be synonymous with "state". The original intention is described and discussed at length here. --Jiang 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • But if you want to talk about Taiwan within the concept of "China", that is NPOV?? Scroll above for my private discussion with you. Heilme 23:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And implying that Taiwan is not part of China is also NPOV. I beg you please read the China article in its entirety. Never does it make some kind of inane statement like "Taiwan is part of China". It very specifically spells out the current cross-straits conflict. Nobody is going to read the China article and think, "oh, Taiwan is part of China". What someone would learn from reading the article is the on-going dispute between the PRC and the ROC over Taiwan. Hong Qi Gong 04:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That is why Wikipedia must not try to imply anything. By mentioning Taiwan in article with the title "China" or "Chinese civilization" implies that Taiwan is part of the concept of "China" (in which case possibly Outer Mongolia and Outer Manchuria may deserve a mention too), and Taiwanese independence advocates maintain the separate identity between Taiwan vs China (culturally etc). I think the Political status of Taiwan, Republic of China, and some sections of the PRC page are able to explain this without the implying anything. Heilme 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No offense, but you're crazy. The current cross-straits situation didn't emerge out of a vacuum. Nothing on the page says that Taiwan is part of China, but even the most ardent DPP supporter will say that Taiwan and the ROC's current political situation and history is directly tied to China. That is a simple fact. The page itself clearly spells out the current political confusion. If Taiwan ever becomes independent formally, and the PRC gives up its claim on the island, then sure, we can leave Taiwan out of the China page. But not mentioning Taiwan at all in the China civilisation page is POV. What the page does right now is clearly NPOV because it explains the situation. Hong Qi Gong 15:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No offense taken. Or another way to avoid the potential mess is to just simply direct people towards the dab page and have them read more on the state and the territory that each state governs. Then we are only implying that mainland China belongs to the PRC (disputed Taiwan issue incl) and Taiwan belongs to the ROC. Heilme 01:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The current setup caters only to the KMT viewpoint. It is POV because KMT and CPC were civil war archrivals (KMT and DPP are political rivals too). A disambiguation page would be the best solution, because we can provide ALL viewpoints with the disambiguation page (for example, we can write Chinese Taipei besides Republic of China, we can also say the common name of ROC is Taiwan). The most common usage of China is the modern nation-state. The OED and Websters dictionary refer to China as a country, not a civilization. Those who believe that the current setup of having China being a civilizational article and PRC being a separate article is NPOV are seriously deluding themselves. No one but KMT-supporters would be happy with the current arrangement (supporters of both DPP and CPC would balk). NPOV means providing all relevant viewpoints, not only the minority viewpoint of the KMT. --Intsokzen 06:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • you can provide all viewpoints in an article. That is the essence of NPOV. You cannot provide all viewpoints in a disambiguation page: you can only provide a list. The article makes no statements of fact that Taiwan is part of China or that the PRC is not the sole (de jure) China. It makes statements of positions, so I don't see how the DPP and CPC would have grounds to call us misleading. Likewise, you can say moving People's Republic of China to "China" would be catering to the CPC and DPP viewpoints, so how is that any better? --Jiang 12:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The current arrangement is POV towards KMT. China going to PRC has more merit than the current arrangement, because China going to PRC is at least consistent with the Common Name convention of Wikipedia countries. Given a choice of course, the diambiguation page is the least POV solution. --Intsokzen 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, if this is the question at hand. I would rather have 'China' point to this article, because that's what one expects (I did and was surprised not to find the country's info box I was looking for). Isn't that a Wikipedia policy, to have headers that correspond to what people mean by them? But if it doesn't point to here, the only other option is the disambiguation page, so I'll support that in stead. DirkvdM 09:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Addition: if even we can't make up our minds, we certainly shouldn't do it for our readers, so the disambiguation page makes more sense. DirkvdM 10:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ridiculous. Overseas Chinese (華僑) and China (中國) have nothing in common. Very few Overseas Chinese (outside of PRC citizens) consider themselves zhongguoren (中國人). The only article fueling misconceptions is the China article. --Intsokzen
Yes, but China is a cultural entity. It does not matter whether Overseas Chinese consider themselves "people of China" or not (neither do the Singaporean Chinese here), but you notice Singapore is within the sinosphere, etc. It is about an entity that is not merely a nation-state, as the concept has prevaile through the numerous civil wars, breakups, factionalisms and such of the period. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 12:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
When you start talking about a civilization, you are into difficult territory. Civilizations don't have clear boundaries - arguably, they don't have a center either (that's a theoretical issue though). And if "being Chinese" is the issue (which I don't think it is), then clearly there are myriad "Chinas". Point being, this "cultural entity" you speak of is coherent/communicable only as a semantic construction. "China" is not just a symbol, but a geneaology of symbols.
The only question Wikipedia can answer is what are the most common corrolates to that symbol (not "what is this symbol")? While Wikipedia cannot answer the substantive question, it can answer the functional question - e.g. what does "China" communicate in basic language usage? Here, on the question of what "China" should refer to, the nation-state container bears more weight (by virtue of usage) than the civilization container. The very idea of a nation-state speaks to this weight. Indeed, the concept of a contemporary "civilization" seems to be increasingly difficult to manage, let alone communicate with (apart from intentional obsfucation, i.e. rhetoric). It seems to me the best options are the disambig page or a PRC article which explains the political-cultural situation. A third article - which is what we have now - is a hotbed for future problems and actually seems a bit too encyclopedic (i.e. almost a moral position). The disambig would, at least, be a respectable compromise.
Vector4F 16:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above comment. Another solution: we rename the current China article as "Chinese civilization" and still have China directly redirecting to Chinese civilization. This will be less confusing for the typical reader as he will notice more clearly that the article he is reading is not specifically on the modern nation-state commonly called China. --Intsokzen 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Please follow the debate more carefully, the debates in the China and PRC pages are two separate questions. --Intsokzen
  • Strongly Oppose The Chinese civilization article makes it very clear that the PRC constitutes most of what is known as China. There's no need to change the status quo—by doing so, you will merely be "feuling misconceptions" as Natalina said and propogating the systemic bias that plagues English Wikipedia. -- WGee 02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The current China article is fueling misconceptions as it is. See above comment. --Intsokzen
  • Oppose. China should not point to a disambiguation page. The current China article is a disambiguation page, one that explains not only what the term "China" can refer to but also where these viewpoints came from and what their implications are. -- ran (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly. If the current Chinese civilization article is a dab page, why can't we simply direct people to China (disambiguation) page? It's more concise and shorter (shows clearly PRC = mainland vs ROC = Taiwan). If the user wanted slightly more explanation (about the political split), then the user can click on either link (PRC or ROC) and read the introductory paragraph of each page (which we may have to expand). Personally, I think the most important reason why early Wikipedians created the current China page (about civilization) is more to explain the current political split. The other points (culture, history etc) in the Chinese civilization page are extra and really unnecessary in itself because people can go to History of China, Culture of China etc for more specific story. People claim that the current China article is used to summarize all those points (regarding culture, history etc), but do we really need such summary? Why is there no French civilization or Japanese civilization article then? This is why I really do think that the current China page is solely created for political split disambiguation which the China (disambiguation) page itself is able to explain more concisely (more details by clicking on each link). Heilme 19:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There really was no "French civilization" or "Japanese civilization," unless you mean Western civilization or Ancient Rome.--Ryz05 t 19:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No, China (disambiguation) is a poor substitute for the current China page. As I said, the current China article explains not only what the term "China" can refer to but also where these viewpoints came from and what their implications are. Such niceties are far too often missing or hidden in simplistic portrayals found in Western media, atlases, even encyclopedias, and that is precisely what we are avoiding by not redirecting people automatically to a China (disambiguation) page that forces people to "pick" something that "sounds right" without informing them amply first. -- ran (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To Ryz05, the content of the Chinese civilization page is really about the culture, history, demographics, geography of "China" etcetera, I am sure then that there is a French civilization or a Japanese civilization?? If France and Japan then don't need a civilization page, why do China need that? If it's just used to explain the political split why do we need to create a new article when we can simply just explain it in a small paragraph no more than 10 sentences. Heilme 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone mentioned earlier, that the Chinese civilization is more equivalent to the civilizations that were found in Ancient Rome and Ancient Egypt. Chinese civilization also encompasses, to some extent, all of East Asia, so it can also be relatively compared to that of Western civilization. I think ran answered the second question pretty well.--Ryz05 t 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know. What I said is more of sarcasm. Because the content of the Chinese civilization article is definitely nowhere near that of Ancient Rome or equivalent. It's just totally off. Either way, the current China (civilization) article is wrong: either it shouldn't be there, or should be re-named, or the content revised. Heilme 05:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To Ran, then if you insist on such "ample" explanation, surely we can do that in one small paragraph written in the dab page. Do we need to explain it "amply" by writing an entirely new article explaining the current political split, when the Political status of Taiwan, Republic of China, and some sections of the PRC page already did that? In addition to that, is the other contents of the China page necessary? Culture, demographics, economy? I think I can find those somewhere else and in more "ample" detail too. And the question therefore, is the current China article necessary if it's created simply to explain the political split? Heilme 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Heilme: The China article is not here merely to explain the political split. It exists in order to explain the entire narrative of the Chinese civilization all the way down to the current political split. As for the need for ample explanations, it is certain that China (disambiguation) is nowhere near ample in this regard, and it is exactly this kind of oversimplicity so rampant in both Western and Chinese media that we're trying to avoid here on Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that the current content of the China article is just simply a summary of other existing articles such as History of China, Culture of China, Religion of China etcetera plus explanation of the current political split (intertwined in the article throughout). The article thus should be renamed to "China (Chinese civilization)" and not simply "China". And that's more appropriate because the current China article is in the context of civilizational (cultural, historical entity not political) point. So this is the first reason I said, when users search for "China", are they expecting to find a story on the Chinese civilization? Perhaps. But then there is an equal likeliness that they may expect to be directed to the PRC page as well (after all it's the common short name) (especially for those who already knows the political split story). Or perhaps, ROC too. The dab page thus gives a choice so to speak: Do you want to read the entire story on Chinese civilization (up to and including the political split), or skip that and directly go to other destinations that are also called "China" (such as PRC and ROC and porcelain)? Heilme 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nom. --16(Sechzehn) 10:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I say we close this pointless discussion. What Heilme has a problem with is not the redirect itself, but that the China civilisation mentions Taiwan. If so, he could raise the issue over at the China page and ask for a vote to remove any references to Taiwan. Hong Qi Gong 15:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WTF? You've completely misunderstood Heilme and my criticism of the current China/PRC arrangement. This debate is far from pointless. Your self-appointed arrogance though is amazing. China does not equal "Chinese civilization," China is a country. The current arrangement is wanton misuse of the English language as well as common Chinese perception, and it is also in violation of Wikipedia country conventions. Like I said earlier above, with the exception of PRC citizens, most Overseas Chinese (arguably part of Chinese civilization) do not consider themselves people of China (zhongguoren). Bunch of arm-chair historians here making up fiction to fulfill their political fantasies. Wikipedia is a representation of reality, not a forum for you guys to push through a particular (unestablished) agenda. --Intsokzen 17:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Most Overseas Chinese (華僑) do not consider themselves 中國人, but they do consider themselves 華人, with ancestry coming from what has been known as "China" in English even centuries before the PRC or the ROC was born. What Heilme keeps complaining about is that he thinks the China page is POV of saying Taiwan is part of China. But the article clearly spells out the current political confusion and conflict between the ROC and PRC over Taiwan. He's not complaining about the possibility of a user wanting to read about "China, Maine" when he searches for "China". His complaint is not about the ambiguity of "China", but that he thinks the China page says that Taiwan is part of China. Instead of suggesting a change in the redirect, he needs to go over to the China page and suggest that it deletes any reference to Taiwan. Hong Qi Gong 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hong Qi Gong, I think you misunderstood me. The Taiwan issue is just one (perhaps the least of my concern) of the many issues of why I do not like the current setting. I am also complaining about the ambiguity of China since it can mean more than one thing (politically, conceptually (mainland vs. greater etcetera), and also in literal meanings). If the current China page is about civilization, then rename it Chinese civilization. The content of the current China article can be merged to other existing articles such as the PRC, ROC, and others. The PRC and ROC articles should not only talk about the PRC or ROC itself. They should be expanded to include everything from the territory and the people that each state governs. The History section of the PRC article for instance, only talks about 1949-now. That is not fair. It should talk about the history of the territory that PRC governs. Moreover, there is a Main Article link to History of China in that section, yet it talks none about it. In essence, I also question the necessity of the current China page (or if it's to be retained, at least rename it to Chinese civilization). If all users can be directed to the dab page, then they can choose the options they want. The two top choices that infer to China are probably the PRC and the ROC (perhaps more towards PRC). They are probably the two equally most important states that have the name China in them and therefore needs to be clearly disambiguated. Other frequent meanings of China of course also exists such as the use of it in porcelain or Mainland China. Heilme 23:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is one shred of proof that majority people would like to be directed and to see the Chinese civilization article (a narrative story from pre-history until modern times as Ran put it) when they search for "China", then I will back down from my suggestion. Otherwise (from my own personal experiences), I dare say that there are also many people who would like to go to the PRC, ROC, or porcelain article when they search for "China" (perhaps PRC and ROC are the other 2 top alternatives). And thus, the need to direct people to the disambiguation (dab) page. When people are in the dab page, from there onwards, they can easily be re-directed to their final destination within one click. Heilme 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - as per Heilme. Personally I think it's better if China can go to PRC, but the second best option would also for China to go to the dab page. When I first search for China, I expect to find all the country infobox such as searching for Singapore, Malaysia, Japan etcetera. I am surprised I am directed to a page about the "Chinese civilization". Okeydokey 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the gist of the common name and NPOV policies put together comes down to this: (1) what does a person associate with the name "china" - the state (PRC), "civilisation", or some other entity or concept(e.g. ROC, porcelain)? (2) If there is a single answer to question (1), then the China page should go to that entity or concept. If there is no predominant answer, or a wide divergence of answers, then the China page should go to the disambiguation page. --Sumple (Talk) 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with Sumple and Heilme. I think I like to see China go to China (disambiguation) page. Some users say it already: that first time I search for "China", I expect to go to PRC or at least a country article, not civilization. It seems that "China" has many other equally important meanings too (PRC and ROC are 2 top ones, then Mainland China, porcelain). If we go to disambiguation page, then I can easily access PRC, ROC, or Chinese civilization articles from there. Very convenient. Plus, to read more on current political division between PRC and ROC, I think I can understand from reading ROC article alone. The others such as history, economy, and geography can be found somewhere else. I also read the discussion going on in the China page and somebody mentions that it's better to make the Chinese civilization page to focus on Ancient China topics (like Ancient Rome) such as ancient banking, coinage, law, social structure etcetera, I think that's more interesting. Sarangburung 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If the editors of these two pages are having trouble reaching consensus, you might fork this discussion over to a separate page, and and ask for an Request for Comment on it. That could get you outside views that would provide a good sample of what other Wikipedia editors expect to see. GRBerry 01:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Opppse - I support the status quo. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I know what status quo is. But I am guessing some people still think I am trying to merge China -> PRC. Plus, this is not about the voting yes or no, it's about the reason why oppose or support. And the user above didn't give any reason. Heilme 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since there's not much activity any longer in this Talk page, I think I am going to submit this discussion for RfC as per suggestion by GRBerry. As of now (23:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)), there are 9 supports, 8 opposes, and 1 neutral comments, so I declare no consensus. OK everyone? Heilme 23:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Before this, perhaps I will make a summary of the disputes and I will transfer the entire discussion (cut-and-paste) into the Talk:China page because truthfully speaking, there is no reason why we are discussing all this in the PRC Talk page (as this has nothing to do solely with PRC). Heilme 00:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just discovered that the China article in German, Arabic, Greek, Dutch languages directs to disambiguation page. While the China article for Russian, Spanish, Italian, Estonian, Esperanto, Indonesian, Finnish, Swedish, Turkish, Croatian directs to the PRC. The Chinese, French (featured), Japanese, Polish, Danish, Malaysian, Norwegian, Vietnamese version is somewhat similar to the our current English China page but there is a clear disambiguation statement in the very first introductory paragraph linking to the states PRC and ROC (two states with the name "China"). Of course, this doesn't mean anything. We are not monkey see, monkey do. Just some things that may be interesting, that's all. Heilme 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Most overseas Chinese consider themselves Chinese period in English or Huaren in Mandarin, including many Taiwanese, but not "Mainlanders" which carries a negative connotation.

The Congo and Ireland articles are much better written - and they don't pretend that Congo is a "cultural entity" rather than a country. Perhaps that's something that China should aspire to? And Tibet is (a) not divided and (b) not a nation. --Sumple (Talk) 05:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
(comment) in terms of recent history, the administration in Lhasa has not controlled major parts of those other provinces for more than 300 years. --Sumple (Talk) 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? Is that the only defining concept of "China"? While you may think so, I bet many other people don't think that is so (including me). How about nation-state "China"? Heilme 00:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current dab notice at the top of the China page is completely satisfactory for clarifying any ambiguity. More importantly, redirecting China to China (disambiguation) would be a violation of current disambiguation conventions; if we moved the current article to Chinese civilization, then if anything we'd have China itself be the dab page. But I don't see evidence that that's necessary. -Silence 20:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is adequate clarification for those varied people searching for history on Chinese civilization, the PRC, and porcelain or other terms in the first lines of the article to help avoid any confusion. The way it stands now, the article represents a neutral and unpoliticized view of the culture and history of the region. I see no point in changing it. Woogums 01:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly and stringently oppose. Note: the current phrasing of this proposal is confusing. China currently does not redirect to any other page; instead is its own article about China. China is a country that, as they teach the kids there, has a history of 5000 years; the PRC was founded in 1949. We should be talking about extending this format to other country articles, rather than retreating from it here. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So how do you know people are looking for the 5000-year-old China or the 50-year-old PRC when they search for "China"? Both concepts (civilizational China vs. PRC) can appear when one refers to "China". There are also other phrases related to "China" such as the ROC, or porcelain. Thus, the need to disambiguate. Heilme 23:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually you know what? The term “China” is a very ambiguous term, there is no way you can disambiguate it. And just like you said, if we don’t know what people are really looking for when they typing in “CHINA”, don’t you think it’s inappropriate to simply direct it to PRC? The article “China” should be a general information article about China instead of subsidiary of PRC. PS: The term China also means Chinese Ceramic Vase. Bowbowx 05:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't you mean "stridently"? --Yath 06:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That, as well.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 07:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The idea is that an article should have whatever the reader expects most. In this case, "China" would be an article about the PRC, but I suppose that would be too difficult. So the second place choice, a disambiguation page, is a reasonable compromise. People certainly aren't looking for the "Chinese civilization" - that's why we have "History of X" articles. --Yath 10:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sending it to a disambig page means that a reader will always need two clicks to get to the article that they want - one to the disambig page and one from there to the actual article. As it stands now, they get directly to the article that they want half the time, possibly more than half the time. Jll 16:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually if all users are directed to disambig page when they search on "China", it would require only one click to get to their final destination. See Georgia, America for equivalent examples. Heilme 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If the search takes them to a China page with some content on it plus a choice to go onto PRC, then if they were looking for the content on that page (i.e. not PRC) it is only one click (i.e. zero clicks by your counting). The examples that you cite have loads of possibilities, America has about 40, and Georgia about 15, whilst the China page has only two; three if you anticipate people searching for Taiwan to go via China. Personally I would make America go to United States with a link at the top to a disambiguation page, in the same way that HMS Victory has. Jll 09:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand how you count it, but I still think it's one click in either cases. Plus, China has more than 10 possibilities, 2 or 3 considering the important ones. America has 40 possibilities but only 2 important concepts. Similarly, Georgia have 15 possibilities but only 2 important ones. You seem to be neglecting some important facts in your argument. Heilme 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That presumes that people who search for "China" are searching for Chinese civilization. I rather doubt it--usually, they'd be looking for one of the modern Chinese states. --Yath 06:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do you say that? What's the evidence? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 07:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
And why do you think people would rather go to the Chinese civilization article when they search for "China"? What's the evidence? Heilme 23:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It's my opinion. --Yath 10:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONGLY OPPOSE: Reason is very simple. PRC does not 100% signify to current state of China. China, as a whole, is currently divided between PRC and ROC. (Just like South Korea and North Korea) Most people today recognize PRC as the only Chinese state because such reorganization is “POLITICAL” driven. The truth is, communist PRC does not have authority over ROC, and democratic ROC does not have authority over PRC. Yet, ROC was long established before PRC and was ONCE the founder and permanent security council of UN. People type in “China” because they want to know about China, and China is simply more than just PRC. Merging “CHINA” article with PRC is an act ignoring the existence of ROC which is in fact a systemic bias. Wikipedia, being a world wide encyclopedia, should uphold the NPOV principle in educating the general public the truths instead of political agenda. I see nothing wrong with current article, therefore I believe, merging “CHINA” with PRC is nothing but unnecessary.Bowbowx 05:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It sounds like you're opposed to "China" being about the PRC. Fine, but that's not what is being proposed here--the proposal is that "China" redirect to "China (disambiguation)". --Yath 06:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_civilization/Archive_11&oldid=1136304610"