Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive 6

< Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)
Latest comment: 18 years ago by MarkSweep in topic Titles of articles to include tone marks?
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

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

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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#..of Taiwan → ..of the Republic of China — Instantnood 11:05, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Solution

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#Solution — Instantnood 11:05, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/NPOV#..of China ''or'' ..of the PRC → ..of mainland China

Xiong's moves

Despite the lack of any support whatsoever, Xiong continues to move PRC/ROC/SAR-discussions to Talk:PRC vs ROC, as part of his proposal outlined above. In the above proposal, Xiong has also expressed his clear disregard for the policies of consensus and NPOV.

I've reverted this page three times already. If anyone wishes to continue restoring the content Xiong is moving out, please help me out and do so. Thanks in advance. -- ran (talk) 07:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

This no longer applies. -- ran (talk) 06:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


Politics/Parties/Elections

Under the non-disputed portions of the current NPOV section, it is preferable to use the actual name of the political entities, ie: PRC, ROC, Hong Kong, Macau. I found most of this stuff was organized under "mainland China", because 10 days ago (ahem) someone (ahem) moved everything there. This caused "Elections in mainland China" to appear in lists of countries, which is not OK.

I emptied the mainland and recreated all the PRC categories. Plus, I tried to remove any plain old "China" category that sat alone. Or, I disambiguated it with NPOV explanatory text on the category page itself that "China" was not a single entity... blah blah blah. See Category:Political_parties_in_China. PRC, ROC, HK, and Macau appear as equals in these lists. I accept this because of the disclaimer text.

There is a category, "Youth Wings of Chinese Political Parties" that has existed for quite awhile that was linked from a parent category Category:Youth wings of political parties this listing as "Chinese" is entirely POV as the only article there is in the PRC. Either it needs a lot of expansion and explanatory text or some other way of organizing this. I'm open to taking the only article there, renaming it to "... of the PRC" and putting it directly in the parent category, I am not sure the maintainers of that parent category find that amenable.

Who wrote this? Can you sign it?
PRC, ROC, HK, and Macau appear as equals in these lists. -- don't you see something wrong with this? Hong Kong and Macau are administrative divisions of the PRC. -- ran (talk) 20:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Size of this article

It's 230k, which is getting impossible to edit. Can we move that huge discussion to /NPOV?

Chinese surnames on Wikipedia

If you're interested in working on how Chinese surnames should be presented on Wikipedia, please comment at Talk:Chinese surname#Chinese surnames on Wikipedia. Thanks. — Instantnood 13:55, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention vs. Manual of Style

The "Political NPOV" section doesn't seem seem to be even largely about article naming conventions, but about style and usage, which is beyond the scope of of this namespace. It ought to confine itself to guidelines on which articles names should use the terms "China", "mainland China", or "PRC", etc. Alai 16:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eras and Emperors

[I moved this post from the main project page since it was incorrectly posted there --Umofomia 23:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)]

I was thinking of including all events of an Emperor's reign into the Emperor's article itself, regardless of direct involvement from the Emperor. For example, during the reign of the Shunzhi Emperor, the Manchus took over Beijing, but it had little to do with the Emperor himself but was much the work of Dorgon and a couple Han Chinese Generals. This way a continuous line of articles could eventually compose the entire History of China series by Era Name. The problem I see, however, is the fact that other than Qing and Ming Dynasty Emperors, there can be several era names for one Emperor. Should we consider having separate articles for each era name? Furthermore, several era names can exist at the same time for various rulers. Any ideas?

Colipon+(T) 22:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm.... a very interesting idea! :D I'd suggest though that you use just one article for each Emperor with multiple era names, or else some of those Tang Dynasty emperors are really going to be chopped up into tiny bits...
This is truly a cool idea, and I think if combined with a few aids (e.g. the bar at the bottom providing a continuous chain of links; better designed timelines) we would get a very comprehensive description of Chinese history.
The era names can probably be put into the year articles (1, 2, etc.). We can put Chinese historical events there too. -- ran (talk) 00:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent Ran. If you can agree with this idea then I can begin with Qing Dynasty stuff, which is relatively simple compared to Tang Emperors with about 25 era names. But before I start, I'm open to suggestions on format. I do think Wikipedians could undertake a huge project on the history of the longest continuous civilization in the world. Colipon+(T) 04:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm... how about a WikiProject? :D Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese history. -- ran (talk) 05:32, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Great idea. If one of you doesn't start it, I probably will in the near future. Colipon+(T) 01:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cantonese naming conventions

One thing that occured to me while working on several Cantonese and Hong Kong related articles was that Wikipedia lacks a clear naming convention for Cantonese. Obviously for placenames we use the official spelling and for people we choose their official or most commonly used name. And we keep well established spellings like dim sum. But what about for less well-established terms like Chaan-teng or Poon choi? When naming an article, what system do we use? There's multiple Cantonese romanization systems in existence, Barnett-Chao, Jyutping (used by the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, Yale romanization (used more often by western academics), the official Guangdong_Romanization, among others, and none of them are dominant. We should have some kind of consistent and systematic naming convention to avoid confusion and as a guideline for starting new Cantonese-related articles. I've mostly been using Yale, but what the Standard Cantonese says really is true: most Cantonese speakers, including me, don't understand most of the Romanization system, and I'm disinclined to learn them until there's a system that's being consistently used.--Yuje 11:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

There's never any well-established system to transliterate Cantonese terms into English. In Hong Kong the process is largely done by convention. If there is already an established English name for a certain item, others follow. For transliteration, it is heavily influenced by the system used by the Hong Kong Government. For food, for instance, however, it is usually done by literal translation.
Frankly it is not easy to have a clear convention to transliterate on Wikipedia like using Pinyin for Mandarin and place names in mainland China. There are many already established names. — Instantnood 15:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not only is it not easy, but sometimes "official" government terms get multiple transliterations. This is very obvious hiking around the parks when you notice several english/romanized spellings for the same place. For article titles, just use whatever seems most obvious or plain and make redirects for the rest. Thats what I do. Several native Cantonese speakers here sometimes fix up things obviously broken and/or add the characters. Contribute what you know! Others can help fix it up. SchmuckyTheCat 03:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a dispute link on the article space with no clear link herein. It would be nice if someone fixes the TOC to reflect that discussion, not to mention the cross link should then be adjusted 'autofind' to the appropriate subheading. As it is, for all I know, the item has been moved per one of the references above and this is no longer the proper talk page. It is certainly not obvious!
User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 1 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

Qing Nobility

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've been editing a lot of late-Qing Dynasty articles lately, and have found certain irregularity when it comes to the naming of Qing Dynasty nobles. I have read about the naming conventions of Chinese nobility on the history standards page, and agree that the naming convention there is appropriate. There are problems, however, when we encounter the Qing Dynasty Nobility. Currently three naming conventions seem to have emerged, and a unified convention should be agreed upon. The problems are set below:

  1. Many Qing nobles of the Imperial clan, especially later in the dynasty, appear in Chinese literature simply with their personal names, i.e. Duanhua (端华) was the Prince Zheng, Sushun was also a Prince, of a lower class, but no one refers to him as "Prince".
  2. Yinxiang and Zaiyuan both held the title "Prince Yi", Zaiyuan being a direct descendant of Yinxiang who inherited the title. He was the 6th in a line of Princes Yi that ended after his execution. No one ever referred to him as the "6th Prince Yi", the way some references are made to Zaifeng, the 2nd Prince Chun.
  3. Contrary to nobles of previous dynasties and western countries, Qing nobles did not have a Place name attatched to their title. As a result, some people are simply known, for example, as "Baron", instead of "Baron of Xiang" etc..
  4. Chinese nobility, seen evidently during the Qing Dynasty, received and lost titles, rose and dropped in ranks quite frequently. People such as Yinsi was the Prince Lian under Yongzheng, but was disgraced after and known as "Ai-qi-na". Their names are therefore inconsistent during most nobles' lives.
  5. The loosely defined rank of "Duke" (公) (国公 Guogong is the Imperial Duke, 民公 Mingong is the Commoner Duke) was usually only given to members of the Imperial lineage. Their style names, however, are seldom known, and it would seem inappropriate to name someone like Zaize (载泽) as the Imperial Duke Zaize.
  6. Nobility titles of peerage outside of the imperial clan, i.e. Marquis, Baron, awarded for honour or valour, are seldom used in naming. Zeng Guofan and Yuan Shikai were both made Marquis of the 1st Rank. Should their titles be included in the article title?
  7. Some titles have a posthumous name attatchment. Yinxiang was the Prince Yi-Xian, Xian being the posthumous name. Zaifeng (Regent under Puyi) was simply the Prince Chun, without a posthumous name because the dynasty collapsed. Further, disgraced and executed nobles are usually not referred to by their titles of nobility.
  8. The title beile (贝勒) is actually a Prince of the Blood, but is roughly translated as "Lord". Which translation to use?
  9. etc. etc. running out of time so I won't list them all

If someone is willing to come up with an efficient naming system for all Qing Nobility, I welcome you to. But due to the overwhelming number of problems faced with these complicated conventions, I will offer a simple Solution: Whereas the vast majority of Qing nobility were best known by their personal names, and the organization of the Qing nobles can be best done through such a method, I propose that all Qing Dynasty nobles simply carry their given name on the title of the articles. This is the naming convention accepted on Chinese encyclopedias like the Cihai. All the titles they have received, during their lifetime or posthumously, can be put in bold in the beginning paragraph.

Example:

Yinxiang, the Prince Yi (Chinese:怡亲王胤祥; Pinyin: Yìnxiáng; Wade-Giles: Y'in-hsiang;; Posthumous name: Xián 贤) (1686—1730) of the Manchu Aisin-Gioro clan was a noble of the Qing Dynasty born as the 13th surviving son to the Kangxi Emperor. His mother was Kangxi's concubine, Min-Fei of the Janggiya clan.

I am open to suggestions as to the composition of the first paragraph.

Meanwhile, separate pages will be created for titles that are inherited successively without change of rank, in a similar fashion to Prince Chun and Prince Yi articles.

—Colipon+(T) 06:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia, the names should appear as is the custom in English encyclopedias, not as is the custom in Chinese encyclopedias. We should use the names that English-speaking historians of China use. Therefore, Prince Gong, 1st Prince Chun, and 2nd Prince Chun should remain as they are. Nobody in the West knows their given names, and no historian in the West use their given names. They are always referred to as "Prince Gong", or "2nd Prince Chun". For other princes, sometimes western historians use the given names. For example, Sushun is known as "Sushun" by Western historians, he is never referred to by his princely title. So in this case we should use "Sushun". So my opinion is that this should all be a case by case decision, depending on what's the most frequently used name by English-speaking historians: sometimes it will be the princely title (Prince Gong), and sometimes it will be the given name (Sushun). In case of doubt, if you are not sure what's the most used name in English, you can check the Cambridge History of China, or you can run a frequency search on Google (only English webpages). Hardouin 12:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Political NPOV section and Wikipedia:Naming conflict

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This proposed policy, Wikipedia:Naming conflict, is certainly of interest to people who watch this page. SchmuckyTheCat 17:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • That proposal is now current. I'm interested in reaction to the NPOV section here because it does not conform for an article titling convention though it works alright as a subject matter and dab convention.

Examples:

Criterion Taiwan Republic of China China
1. Most commonly used name in English 1 0 0
2. Current official name of entity 1 1 0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity 1 0 0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.
Criterion China People's Republic of China mainland China
1. Most commonly used name in English 1 0 0
2. Current official name of entity 1 1 0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity 1 0 0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.


As I see it, the entries for "official name" and "self-identifying name" are what's at issue here, and I don't think there are any easy answers. Take the PRC for example: I personally wouldn't say that its official name is literally just "China", though for practical reasons "PRC" can be shortened to "China" (since there's often no ambiguity). The "PRC" is also called "China" deliberately for political reasons, having to do with the One China doctrine and other political concerns. I'd say the only NPOV official name for the PRC is "PRC", in the sense that everyone can presumably agree that "PRC" is indeed the official name. Finally, the concept of a "self-identifying name" is highly problematic: how do we determine objectively what a self-identifying name is? It's not like the PRC goes around saying "hi, my legal name is Wang Jianguo, but you can call me Gator". How do we go about ascribing self-identification to an entire country/state/thingy? We can't just go with whatever the current regime thinks is right, because in the case of the ROC that can change rapidly depending on who's in charge. So is there a verifiable, objective way to assess self-identification? --MarkSweep✍ 23:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with articles being titled with the official longer name People's Republic of China rather than just plain China. Y'all know that, no argument there. You wouldn't say that China objectively calls itself just plain China in English in both official and self-identifying terms? Mark, I like you, but what are you smoking? (please take that in the lighthearted way it is intended)
As to some of your concerns, let's look at the guideline:
The "PRC" is also called "China" deliberately for political reasons
  • Directly addressed in the section about subjective criteria.
  • Wikipedia describes usage, which is that the PRC is China. There is no doubt anywhere that the english speaking world refers to the PRC as China.
how do we determine objectively what a self-identifying name is?
  • Directly addressed in the section about how to find common names, looking at the international organizations it joins, etc.
We can't just go with whatever the current regime thinks is right, because in the case of the ROC that can change rapidly depending on who's in charge
  • Addressed in the guideline. Burma is now Myanmar. When Chen declares independence in the spring of 2008 and drops ROC completely we'll be busy retitling articles to whatever it becomes. For now, they are identifying as Taiwan, even under KMT rule they used Taiwan as shorthand self-ID rather than ROC - look at the bottom of every Happy Meal toy from the 80s.
Regardless with the "score" China and Taiwan are both the choices to use. I'm not advocating we go around renaming articles! At least not without context. Our NC are still right, in political situations we should use official names. I think in some future disputes, this policy can clearly guide us. For now, let sleeping dogs lie. SchmuckyTheCat 01:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, if we're not talking about the present naming conventions, I won't debate this any further. If/when we have reason to believe that the real world situation is about to change dramatically, we can revisit these issues. --MarkSweep✍ 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
What the ROC has been doing is mainly for practical reasons. They cannot export their products to countries which do not officially recognised the ROC with the words "Made in the Republic of China". They also have a need to let consumers be able to differentiate their products from those produced in the mainland. Very often they would put on the words "Made in Taiwan, R.O.C.". Same reasons for putting Taiwan in round brackets on the cover of passports, since ROC citizens are repeatedly mistaken as from the mainland. Do they no longer identify themselves as ROC? I doubt. — Instantnood 06:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

(response to SchmuckyTheCat's comment at 17:28, August 4 [1]) SchmuckyTheCat please don't equate and mess up ROC and Taiwan, and mainland China and PRC. ROC = Taiwan plus something, and mainland China = PRC(-administered territories) minus something. "Mainland China" is the official term the PRC government refers to its territories with Hong Kong and Macao excluded. — Instantnood 11:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

What official term? Does the PRC call itself "Mainland China" in international organisations despite only representing Mainland China? Did it participate in the Olympics as "Mainland China", when only Mainland Chinese athletes are participating under the Chinese flag? Does the term "Mainland China" appear on its passport, despite the fact that it is only used by Chinese mainlanders? Official term?--Huaiwei 11:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Please refer to talk:mainland China. The term is used in laws. Unofficial? Informal? — Instantnood 12:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
As far as well all know, plenty of "unofficial" terms are used in law, so since when is the law a definitive crtieria? Vulgarities were used in some court sessions. I suppose that makes them socially acceptable? Official? Formal?--Huaiwei 12:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't even matter if it appears in law. It's a term used for a region of the country, not the whole country. SchmuckyTheCat 16:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Glad you're saying this. :-D — Instantnood 08:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

tones in Chinese words

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tones should be marked in Chinese words (such as proper names), in order to distinguish words written differently but pronounced alike except for the tone. This distinction can be transliterated conventionally either by accent-characters or by numbers. In the alternative to indicating tones, a distinction between words pronounced alike (in, e.g., Mandarin) by citing variant pronunciations in other (e.g., non-Mandarin Chinese) dialects. Any articles in this encyclopaedia written without tones somehow indicated should be deleted by the editor until the authors have made such corrections.

Please sign your postings.
I agree that tones should be marked, assuming that the person writing the article knows what the correct tones are, but I cannot accept the idea that articles should be deleted. That's not the right way to deal with minor problems. Letters with tone marks are available at the bottom of every edit page, they don't interfere with the reading of names by people who don't understand tones, and they don't clutter up the page the way numbers hui4. P0M 06:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is only the island

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Thus, the term "Taiwan" should only be used when referring to the island itself. Furthermore, t

I removed that text. Taiwan uses Taiwan to refer to the entirety of the ROC, as does the rest of the world, as does other parts of the NPOV section of this very article. A prescription against calling the country by it's name is a violation of the higher policies of WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Wikipedia describes names and usage of them, it does not prescribe them. This statement is a prescription. The existing sentences that the term ROC is often more accurate still exists in our NPOV section and their are plenty of times when it is a preferred term. A wholesale denial of the use of Taiwan to refer to the whole territories isn't acceptable. SchmuckyTheCat 18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole guideline here pertains to unavoidable usage by wikipedia since it is impossible to name an article something else or describe in every instance we mention "Taiwan" what everyone thinks it means. The usage by the Chen Shui-bian administration to refer to the Republic of China synonymously with Taiwan is opposed by Pan-Blue politicians in Taiwan and the PRC government. The endorsement of Chen's position is not NPOV. See [2]. No one disputes that Taiwan is an island while stating that Taiwan is something more than an island (be it a country, state, or province) is disputed and should be avoided.--Jiang 18:41, October 5, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know many pro-independence people also oppose equating Taiwan with the entirety of the territories the ROC government currently has jurisduction over, since Quemoy, Wuchiu, Matsu, Taiping and Pratas are traditionally not part of Taiwan. All arguments that favour Taiwan independence, such as the recipient of the sovereignty of Taiwan and the Pescadores in the Treaty of Taipei, the way Qing governed Taiwan and the Pescadores, and the attitude of the ROC in the 1920s and 30s towards Taiwan, that Taiwan was left out while all other provinces and territories were listed as part of the ROC, are not applicable to those islands. The official position (well, verbally) of the DPP government is that Taiwan is used for clarification purpose, to avoid the country being misunderstood to be the People's Republic of China. In fact they have not equate Taiwan with the entirety of the present-day extent of the ROC. If Taiwan is going to declare its independence, the status of the other islands would be under question. — Instantnood 19:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The convention still states that the official term should be used in a political context - which is correct. I am only removing a statement that the world "Taiwan" can only be used for the island. That prescribes Wikipedia's usage and removes the right of the Taiwanese to define their own identity. The word "Taiwan" often means the entirety of the territory of the ROC - look at the usage of the word Taiwan in this very article. It doesn't repeatedly say "Taiwan plus this island and that island and some other islands", it just uses Taiwan. Does the NPOV section violate it's own NPOV by this? No, it does not. This single sentence violates the WP NPOV policy, the Naming conflicts policy, and our own NC NPOV policy. I'm not asking us to rename anything. I'm simply saying this sentence, that Wikipedia CANNOT use a term, is incorrect.
Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
  • Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
  • Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
  • Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
  • Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?
Thus, the objections of the KMT or the PRC should have no bearing on the usage of a name for the place on Wikipedia.

SchmuckyTheCat 19:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

We use the combinations Mainland China/Taiwan/Hong Kong/Macau for neutrality when politics is not the subject so the territorial claims are left ambiguous. see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). While there is little room for confusion (other than using political labels that are rarely used in economics), it's not NPOV to assert that there are two countries each consisting of their current jurisdictions. I know this is really the case, but saying so is making a politcal statement. I don't see what's wrong with using non-political titles. --Jiang 13:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have traditionally been receptive of this ROC/Taiwan terminology usage as per this convention if it helps to prevent major disagreements between users on which terminology to use. But sometimes I do wonder if it is being applied to the point that it has become an exercise endored only by a tiny few, and not even reflective of common usage outside wikipedia. For example, if we were to take the above statement seriously, anyone using the term "Taiwan" would be deemed as a supporter of TI. I do not think that is a reflection of reality at all on the international stage.--Huaiwei 19:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This [3] is the non-political context reason why I removed that sentence. Instantnood is inserting (or objecting to my change from) a political term, ROC, into an article about football on the basis that "Taiwan" can only refer to the island. SchmuckyTheCat 19:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor modifications to the section on romanisation

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd like to propose to change the sentence " ..pinyin is the most standard way of romanizing Mandarin Chinese words. " as "..Hanyu Pinyin is the most standard way of romanizing Chinese words, based on their pronunciation in Standard Mandarin.", and " In general, Chinese entries should be in Hanyu Pinyin except.. " as "In general, the titles of Chinese entries should be in Hanyu Pinyin except.." — Instantnood 20:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Policy}}

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Should this page be tagged with the {{policy}} template? — Instantnood 20:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Considering the current state of discussions, is this page fit for it?--Huaiwei 10:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
No, it's a guideline. SchmuckyTheCat 17:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The country names China and Taiwan

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Regarding the recent edits on the "short" names of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China on pages such as List of countries, List of sovereign states and List of countries by continent, I've thought it over and consulted resources on Wikipedia. Here are my thoughts.

As much as I respect many points of the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV, such as "Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." (with the first sentence being more accurate), I think the guideline can be overreaching in some cases, such as for the above pages, and becomes some sort of politically-correct language police.

For example, in the pages above, the "short" name of each country is listed, and the debate is on what "short" names should be used for the PRC and the ROC. I think we can all agree on the following points:

  1. The shortening of the names of the two countries into "China" and "Taiwan" are the most commonly used around the world.
  2. The names "China" and "Taiwan" do not provide any confusion when the context clearly implies that the entities described are countries. (Confusion may arise when naming articles and in some other contexts when China may describe the "greater China region" and Taiwan may describe the island.)
  3. The country name "China" is accepted by the governement and the people of the PRC, and the name "Taiwan" is accepted by the government and most people of the ROC.
  4. The country names "China" and "Taiwan" may be controversial to some people.

Regarding of how to deal with the controversy, please look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms, and the example cited. What it basically says is that just because the short country names "China" and "Taiwan" are controversial to some does not mean we have to ban them. Wikipedians should be allowed to use them not because these names are endorsed as "accurate", but because they are sufficient to "describe" the countries. On the contrary, not allowing to use them would violate NPOV, as we have decided to conform to the opinions of the people who oppose to those names. As this sentence in Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms says:

Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

Therefore, the pages above merely describe what the "short" names of the countries are, but not what the "short" names of the countries should be. So I believe using the names "China" and "Taiwan" satisfies Wikipedia's policy. Chanheigeorge 08:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is non-negotiable. We should not use the terms in a manner that might be representing some of the different points of view but not the rest. Yes Wikipedia is descriptive, and therefore we must use the names they're officially known as, not what some people or, specifically, politicians, advocate. As an encyclopædia the aim of Wikipedia is not like that of the press. We have to present neutral facts, and present different points of view in a neutral manner (whereas the press have to take care of how much the audience can understand). — Instantnood 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
While "Neutrality is non-negotiable", whether something is nuetral or not is.--Huaiwei 10:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The coexistence of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) is a result of the Chinese Civil War. Even if the PRC is more recognized as the only legal government of China, you cannot say that the ROC, the "Republic of CHINA", is not China. The situation is similiar to the coexistence of the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), which is a result of the Korean Civil War. In that case, we use the terms "South Korea" vs "North Korea", or "Korea, R.O." vs "Korea, D.P.R.", to refer to each of them. It doesn't make any sense to refer to one of them with the term "Korea", and the other one with the name of a province that the government occupies. The case of China can be handled in a similar way. A relatively neutral way to give "short names" would be "China, P.R." and "China, R.O.". Last year, that Chen Shui-bian proclaimed that "中華民國的簡稱就是台灣" (the short name of the Republic of China is Taiwan) has triggered some reaction from both mainland China and the pan-blue coalition in Taiwan. Using "Taiwan" as the so-called "short name" is too controversial, and should not be encouraged. - Alanmak 04:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China is almost always referred to as "Taiwan" nowadays, NOT "China". Using "China, R.O." is not accurate because it implies that China is a shortname alias for Republic of China. The short name of the Republic of China is Taiwan. It's not up to us to dispute this. What a-bian said was "中華民國是台灣" (the Republic of China is Taiwan [not merely its short name] - that is the statement in dispute.--Jiang 05:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The Republic of China is frequently referred to as "Taiwan". Calling "China" is usually confusing. "China, R.O." is not easily understandable. While I consider "China (Taipei)" better than "Chinese Taipei", virtually no one uses "China (Taipei)". Sometimes I write "Taiwan administered by the Republic of China". Since there has never been both Chinas co-existing in the United Nations, the Republic of China has been effectively supressed. "Red China" is not to be encouraged while it may not be a neutral point of view.--Jusjih 01:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Chinese newspapers

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please join the discussion at WP:CFD#Category:Chinese newspapers to Category:Newspapers in the PRC, regarding how the category shall be renamed. — Instantnood 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions for lists

Latest comment: 18 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

There are some recent changes and editing disputes to the placement of the "Republic of China" in lists that I think should be settled in written conventions, rather than being edited and reverted repeatedly:

1. alphabetization: Countries in lists can either be alphabetized according to common name (this is the existing convention) or official name. The common name of the "Republic of China" is "Taiwan", and as such, it should be alphabetized under "T". The only excusable alternative is alphabetization under "R" for its common name. However, as a rule, items on a list should be placed where people are mostly likely to look for them. People look for Taiwan under "T", not the Republic of China under "C". Some recent changes use the listing "China, Republic of" imply that "China" is the short form for the "Republic of China". This is outright false. In fact, our average reader born after the 1960s in a anglophone country will probably be unaware of the existence of a "Republic of China" on Taiwan, and will most definately not look for Taiwan under "C".

2. formatting: I find the use of "[[Republic of China]] ([[Free Area of the Republic of China|Taiwan Area]] only)" as excessive. It seems that Wikipedia is applying Chinese Nationalist Party reunificationist ideology to the extreme. According to convention, we present only the common name in the list, but an exception can be made for the sake neutrality and accuracy in providing an alternative name (this being "Republic of China") in addition to the common name ("Taiwan"). The name "Republic of China" is itself a charged term, and when it is used in the context of "Republic of China (Taiwan Area only)", we are using "Taiwan Area" as a qualifier of "Republic of China" and this is nowhere near neutral. I flipped through some old editions of the Republic of China Yearbook from the 1980s and even the KMT-led government under Chiang Ching-kuo does not go into such excess. For example, in the "People" section, there is a heading of "population distribution in the Taiwan Area", followed by text that uniformly uses "Taiwan" to mean the entire "Taiwan Area" such as with use of the phrase "Taiwan's population" followed by a specific numerical figure. If this defunct government has no problem using Taiwan synonymously with Taiwan Area and a cultural and demographic context, why should we?

To comply with existing convention and common sense, I propose:

  • "Republic of China" should be always alphabetized under "T" for accessibility purposes.
  • Due to arguments that "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" are not synonymous, and the existing consensus that "Republic of China" should be used where it is more accurate, we should list the entity as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in a political/governmental context (such as with a list of government leaders) and as "Taiwan (Republic of China)" in a non-political context (such as with a list of GDPs).

Comments? --Jiang 12:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Many lists of non-political/governmental topics does have lots to deal with political matters - For instance, lists of GDP figures are compiled by international organisations which have some sort of inclination. There's no such thing as truly apolitical as long as the lists talk about country. All those politics aside, in the study of political science and international relations, the PRC and the ROC are technically split states like the Koreas and Germanys, although there's huge difference regarding their extent of control and official diplomatic recognition. They both are qualified as sovereign states, and the current convention is to talk about their de facto extent of control, excluding all claimed territories (e.g. Olivenza would not be included in the figures for Portugal, not even footnote is necessary).

As for listing and its name, I agree listing it under #T, and would prefer using "[[Republic of China]] (Taiwan)" for all circumstances. "[[Republic of China|Republic of China (Taiwan)]]" is Chen Shui Bian's terminology and is not NPOV. It's fine to use "Taiwan ([[Republic of China]]])" for apolitical ones, but I don't think it's practical to tell what's apolitical. — Instantnood 16:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue, Jiang, as the amount of undiscussed changes on this topic have been disturbing. I've been loathe to get involved. I agree with this so far 100%. "China, Republic of" is something that nobody ever uses. If you could, please address 'noods issue about wikilinking and confusion over direct political and indirect political. SchmuckyTheCat 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This seems generally reasonable. But I wonder whether there is actually a larger issue here: how is the Korean situation being handled at the moment? I'm not saying we should handle China/Taiwan similarly, but if there are inconsistencies we may want to address them at a higher level under general guidelines for country names. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The Koreas seem to be uniformly alphabetized under 'K'. This doesn't seem to be as much as a problem because this is commonly done elsewhere (eg CIA World Factbook) and "Korea" is commonly (though no more common in English than the "N. Korea"/"S. Korea" variations) used in english as the short form for either entity (or both). Where do you suggest this be discussed?--Jiang 09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, no one looks under "C" for a place commonly known as "Tawian". – Zntrip 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The next thing to do is to formalise this general agreement to the unwritten convention as a written policy. — Instantnood 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In deciding whether to use "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)", we must ask ourselves if using "Republic of China" (on its own) would be more accurate than using "Taiwan" (on its own) and vice versa. When we have a list of navies or list of national governments, "Republic of China" is more accurate because we are referring to an organization that is specific to a political entity called the "Republic of China", and whether this political entity controls only Taiwan or encompasses all of mainland China is not really relevant. However, when we speak of economic indicators, we are basing the figures on a defined territory - this is where "Taiwan" becomes relevant. To equate the Republic of China with the area it controls is making a political statement, and this is not an issue of simple boundary disputes when one can argue that the "Republic of China" is either defunct/illegitimate or to have rightfully encompassed a vast amt of territory beyond Taiwan. --Jiang 09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

" However, when we speak of economic indicators, we are basing the figures on a defined territory - this is where "Taiwan" becomes relevant. " - But that's contradicting with the official policy that Taiwan should not be used to refer to the entirety of the present-day Republic of China, beyond the islands of Taiwan (Taiwan, the Pescadores, Green Island, Orchid Island, etc.). The islands on the other side of the strait, and those in the South China Sea, are not, and has never been part of Taiwan, unless Taiwan is used in place of Republic of China.

" To equate the Republic of China with the area it controls is making a political statement,... " - By the same logic, excluding claims from figures of a state (e.g. Olivenza from figures for Portugal) is also making political statement. And we do exclude the area under North Korean control from South Korean figures, and vice versa, despite their claims. Few states officially recognise and maintain official diplomatic ties with both of them. — Instantnood 08:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

...unless Taiwan is used in place of the Taiwan Area. This is exactly what the Government Information Office, in the Republic of China Yearbook does. There is no official policy that states that "Taiwan should not be used to refer to the entirety of the present-day Republic of China". The policy being applied when using "Republic of China" is 'As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing regimes or governments) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan."'

granted, we can say that the numbers for all those lists are only for the territories, when in dispute by another government, under a government's actual control. However, we can also say that all those countries are listed by their common name, not their official name. Wouldn't the figure for South Korea be more accurate and precise if we put it next to "South Korea" rather than the "Republic of Korea"? --Jiang 09:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's my input . . . . at work here in a certain company in Hsinchu people usually don't mention about the Republic of China unless they are talking about the Republic of China income tax, the laws of the Republic of China, or if one has Republic of China citizenship/nationality. When we deal with visiting foreign vendors, we seldom talk about the Republic of China so we wouldn't have to spend so much time giving them the long, complicated story about the Political status of Taiwan. Of course, I could refer them to the Wikipedia (but there's not guarantee that they would read it). Now here's my cheesy joke . . . there was The Artist formerly know as the Prince and there is this Taiwan formally known as the Republic of China . . . . Allentchang 14:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thank you Jiang, another reason why Korea isn't a relevant discussion is that both sides are recognized by the international community, AND each other. They desire re-unification but they don't maintain an official state of denial about the current state. And neither really makes claims about the other. SchmuckyTheCat 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes and no. Although both are members of the UN since 1991, few sovereign states maintain official diplomatic relations with both of them. As far as I can recall, each of them is claiming the territory of the other, although they acknowledge the status quo. One more thing to note is that they're still technically at war. No peace treaty or truce has ever been concluded between the two. — Instantnood 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
(response to Jiang's comment at 09:37, February 28) Did the ROC government prior to Chen's administration use Taiwan in place of Taiwan Area of the Republic of China without first mentioning Taiwan Area in the paragraph/page/chapter? If they mentioned it first almost everytime when they're using Taiwan in place of the it, it's not quite wise for us to simply use Taiwan here on Wikipedia, without illustrating the whole matter clearly prior to the first appearing of Taiwan in an article. Or else it's actually creating more confusions.

As I've said before, using two terms appropriately is in effect avoiding confusions. It's very clear how the subject matter of the history of Taiwan and history of the Republic of China articles are different. Same for Taiwanese cuisine, Taiwanese culture, etc., that readers can promptly tell these articles are not quite immediately related to the non-Taiwan parts of the ROC. — Instantnood 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Did the ROC government prior to Chen's administration use Taiwan in place of Taiwan Area of the Republic of China without first mentioning Taiwan Area in the paragraph/page/chapter? Yes. Page 183 of the 1983 edition of the Republic of China Yearbook (I picked this edition at random) states, 'Foreign trade has often been called the "lifeblood" of Taiwan's economy. It is indeed the driving force between Taiwan's sustained and rapid growth. [new paragraph]With diversified marketing outlets and a wide range of products for export, Taiwan's foreign trade gas been increasing at an annual rate of over 30% during the past three decades. [new paragraph]Two-way trade in 1981 reached a record of US$43.81 billion, an eleven fold increase over a decade ago. [new paragraph]Stimulating this growth is the Republic of China government's policy of private enterprise and free trade that encourages broader participation of private business in global marketing activities and a strengthening of bilateral trade relations [followed by table of statistics entitled "Foreign Trade Volume, 1970-1980"]' This was the first paragraph of Chapter 26, a chapter entitled "Foreign Trade" not under any chapter that states it to be specific to the "Taiwan Area". In fact, I could not find "Taiwan Area" in the edition, so the term may not have come into use yet. However, "Republic of China on Taiwan" was already in frequent use in this edition to refer to the ROC in this existing incarnation (mainland exluded). You should also note the use of "Republic of China" above as something specific to the government, while Taiwan is something specific to the economy.--Jiang 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suspect Quemoy, Matsu, etc., may or may not be excluded from the information presented. Using Republic of China avoids such confusion. — Instantnood 15:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sure they are included. It makes no sense to include Kaohsiung and Taipei municipalities along with Taiwan province, if that were the subject. Keep in mind that this is in a general section, not in a specific section on or a subsection of "Taiwan province" (which exists in the volume). And it makes no sense to speak of foreign trade (trade with countries outside of China) by pinpointing a single province. Though foreign trade from Kinmen/Matsu was probably routed through Taiwan due to martial law, Kaohsiung was (and still is) a major port. Why would they exclude it? --Jiang 00:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It may not be confusing for the almanac of the ROC, but it is when it comes to the Wikipedia, for we're having parallel articles on some topics, e.g. history of Taiwan versus history of the Republic of China, which is not the case in the almanac. (The history topic isn't that immediately political.. it's more or less as political as economy I guess.) Using the two wisely is in effect avoiding ambiguity. The subject matter, or precisely, the scope of the article, is far more clear. As soon as one looks at the title, she/he can promptly tell without much difficulties. — Instantnood 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits by user:SchmuckyTheCat

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Re: [4] [5] - Some certain changes was made to this official policy by user:SchmuckyTheCat, regarding the use of Taiwan on the English-language version of Wikipedia. He claimed it was discussed, and the changes have been there for five months [6]. I don't find any evidence showing that the change was discussed and agreed. Something inappropriately done five months ago, not even five years, is hardly a valid reason to justify the act. As a matter of fact, the deleted sentence has already been on the page since January 2004 [7], long before the official guideline tag was added. — Instantnood 16:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

(yawn) what? SchmuckyTheCat 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this guideline stems for how we defined the scope of the article on Taiwan to be "Taiwan island only". Of course, this was necessary because we have three articles that discuss a subject that is more or less known as "Taiwan": Taiwan, Taiwan Province, and Republic of China. This guideline should apply to linkage, such as in lists of countries by economic statistic where we should link to the country template existing at Republic of China. Other than this, general usage of the term "Taiwan" is not as clear cut. We shouldn't be this restrictive - we only need to provide the proper context.
Like what Allentchang posted in the section above this one, there are situations were Taiwan is used, and other situations where Republic of China is used.
Like "Republic of China (Taiwan Area only)", I think "Republic of China on Taiwan and other islands" is over doing it. It is clear from context that "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China on Taiwan" and "Taiwan (Republic of China)" all mean the existing Republic of China and its current jurisdiction. The issue would be the link to Taiwan, not the format we use. Who even uses the phrase "Republic of China on Taiwan and other islands"? The ROC government has been happy with "Republic of China on Taiwan" in 1980s and 1990s and with "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in the 2000s. I really dont see the confusion of not naming all these islands, especially when mention of every other territory in the world does not include disputed or periphery areas. A list of islands is only necessary in a geographical-politicsl context, such as "the Republic of China currently governs...", not when making a general reference to the existing ROC. --Jiang 06:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What you're now saying is a bit different from what you stated above some time ago. I agree "[[Republic of China]] (Taiwan)" is already adequate, except when there's confusion that Taiwan equals the entirety of the present-day Republic of China. In that case it's necessary to mention there something else other than Taiwan. "[[Republic of China|Republic of China (Taiwan)]]" or "[[Republic of China|Republic of China on Taiwan]]" represents Lee's and Chen's POV, whereas "[[Republic of China]] ([[Taiwan]])" (with an additional wikilink) is not necessary.

Meanwhile, the key issue of this thread is to revert the modifications to the official guideline that were made without prior discussion and community consensus. — Instantnood 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to SchmuckyTheCat's original removal of the phrase above, I object to his sample edit. My objection is not against using Taiwan as a conventional short form for "Republic of China" in a non-political context, but the linking to the Taiwan article when the scope of the article itself is incongruent with the context in which the link is used. In the sample edit, we are linking to the country of origin of a national football team. Be it Puerto Rico or Spain, users clicking on the link in such a context are expecting to find a country template, but this template exists at Republic of China and not Taiwan.
I don't see how [[Republic of China|Republic of China (Taiwan)]] is different from [[Republic of China]] (Taiwan). Either form implies that Taiwan is the conventional short form for Republic of China. If the problem is that by coincidence Chen Shui-bian has decided to change all the government websites to bear "Republic of China (Taiwan)", then we can flip things around with "Taiwan (Republic of China)" and it will almost mean the same thing. Would you be claiming this format to be POV if Chen had not decided to decorate the websites and stuck with "Republic of China", while wikipedia used "Republic of China (Taiwan)"?
I think the rule '"Taiwan" should only be used when referring to the island itself' is uncecessarily restrictive. KMT politicians have commonly used "Taiwan" to mean the current jurisdiction of the Republic of China in an economic or cultural context. The statement "the Republic of China is Taiwan" goes beyond that. It is in the larger context for foregoing past claims and creating de jure two Chinas that is objectionable. Usage in context could be more clearly defined here. The rule should be that "Taiwan" should only be linked when referring to the island itself.--Jiang 17:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Taiwan is provided in round brackets because it's what the Republic of China is commonly known as since 25 or so years ago. Taiwan does not form part of its name, and should therefore not be included as part of the wikilink. For the same reason I'm fine with "Taiwan ([[Republic of China]])", but not "[[Republic of China|Taiwan (Republic of China)]]" or "[[Taiwan]] ([[Republic of China]])".

It's the POV of KMT politicians to go in line with the common usage, as well as to appear to be more localised, but we also have to take care of the POVs of some hardliners of independence who're not considering Quemoy, Matsu, etc., as part of their definition of Taiwan.

Futher, as mentioned above, those parts of the ROC do not historically form part of Taiwan. It's useful to use the terminologies Republic of China and Taiwan wisely, so as to avoid possible confusions.

And, finally, please be reminded again that this thread was started to request to revert SchmuckyTheCat's removal of the sentence from an official Wikipedia guideline. Even if you were agreeing with the removal, still it has to be first restored, then discuss it here and get consensus to do so. — Instantnood 17:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a strange idea of Wikipedia processes to think it has to be reverted before discussion. The change has stood for six months and you're the only one griping - that's a form of consensus in itself. Further, a prescriptive ban on use of a term is a violation of more important Wikipedia policies - it had to go regardless of discussion. SchmuckyTheCat 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Something wrongly done five months ago, or even five years, is still wrong. Five months is too short a period to have the wrong act to be considered lawful for the sake of administrative convenience. There's no consensus nor evidence presented the deleted sentence was in violation with other Wikipedia policies, and as far as I know, few Wikipedia policies posess overriding power over other policies.

Regardless of the above, the key issue remains - you did pretend that it was discussed prior to your changes [9] [10] [11], while there was not. — Instantnood 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point re the pipelinking, but the implication is so subtle that no one is going to get it. Making Taiwan part of the pipelink will only prevent others from creating a less relevant link to Taiwan.
If it is the POV of KMT politicians to go in line with the common usage, then is it not the POV of Wikipedia to not go in line with common usage and impose extreme Chinese Nationalist Party reunificationist ideology (that no one realistically believes in anymore)? The "POVs of some hardliners of independence" can do no more in preventing us from using Taiwan in a non-political context synonymously with "Taiwan Area" more than the fringe groups promoting the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy can stop Wikipedia from using "United States" in any context synonymously with Continental US+Hawaii. And wouldn't these "hardliners of independence" object to using "Republic of China" in the first place?
Instead of restoring the disputed line, let's propose an alternative with specifics on how and when to use Taiwan vs. Republic of China.--Jiang 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hidden notes (<!-- -->) can already prevent editors from adding wikilinks to the Taiwan article. Whether the Hawaiian monarchy exists or not, or whether Haiwaii is part of the United States or not in modern-day usage, is not ambiguous. It is, nevertheless, ambiguous whether Quemoy, Matsu, etc., are part of Taiwan, for it really depends on who's definitions, which are points of view.

Proposals are always welcome, but that's irrelevant with whether the inappropriate edit should be reverted. Inappropriate edits always have to be reverted. An official policy or guideline shouldn't have been modified without consensus, in the first place. — Instantnood 20:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is, nevertheless, ambiguous whether Quemoy, Matsu, etc., are part of Taiwan, for it really depends on who's definitions, which are points of view. No, the common usage of "Taiwan" to mean all areas controlled by the current ROC is not ambiguous nor POV. It is internationally common usage by the media, by diplomats, by people, and by the ROC itself. Even during KMT era, Taiwan was being stamped on commercial products, and not ROC. SchmuckyTheCat 06:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is non-negotiable. Don't think common usage is. Diplomats are not necessarily neutral. And the role of the media is to convey only necessary information, but not the unnecessary details. In many topics, let's say, culture and history, Quemoy and Matsu can hardly be said to be part of Taiwan. I don't think Quemoy and Matsu are part of the Taiwanese culture (even another spoken variant is spoken on the Matsu Islands). During the later days of the KMT era, the official requirement was to use "Made in Taiwan, R.O.C." [12] [13] [14]. Of course, Quemoy and Matsu, in comparison, don't have a lot to export. Don't forget there're exported products stamped "Made in England", "Made in Scotland", etc. — Instantnood 10:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Any ambiguity can be clarified in context. This does not mean that our usage of Taiwan needs to be restricted to "the island". "The Republic of China (Taiwan) maintains a dynamic capitalist economy" implies they are included; "The Republic of China governs the island groups of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu" does not.--Jiang 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It's confusing and ambiguous to most readers who're not expert in the subject matter. But anyhow, this thread is a request to revert the procedurally improper edit by user:SchmuckyTheCat, regardless of the content of his edit. — Instantnood 19:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Schmucky and Instantnood banned

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since these two have shown they can't play nice on this page they are banned per the notice at the top of this page. I am reverting the page to the version that existed prior to the start of the latest war between these two. I encourage others editing this page to feel free to change. --Wgfinley 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph of NPOV section, revision proposal

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on controversial sovereignty issues such as the status of Taiwan and Tibet. Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945—1947 excepted.)

This contains a prescriptive name prohibition: that "China" can't be used as the common name for the PRC.

Wikipedia doesn't prescribe names, it describes them. This prohibition violates the naming conflicts guideline. As well, it's not NPOV to deny what everyone in the world uses as the common name for the PRC - as well as that being the name the PRC uses in the UN, the Olympics, WTO, and well, just about everywhere. I propose the first paragraph read like this:

Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on controversial sovereignty issues such as the status of Taiwan and Tibet.

We don't need the rest of the paragraph, so this stand-alone sentence should probably be fitted somewhere else in the policy.

Let's breakout the rest of the paragraph to see why we don't need it.

Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government.

As "China" is the official name of the PRC, and is the common name of the PRC, this is a prescriptive prohibition that violates our other policies. It is entirely unenforcable as well - the number of times China appears in Wikipedia coinciding with the PRC in direct conflict to this guideline numbers in the thousands. The next paragraph specifies that it is usually more useful to use the official names of the places - which kind of makes this moot anyways.

In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China.

Same as above, particularly the PRC self-identifies as "China", particularly the mainland. Further, there isn't competition over the name. Even the ROC doesn't self-identify as "China". IE, at the Olympics, there is the "China" team, the "Hong Kong, China" team, the "Chinese Taipei" team, and "Macau, China" team (when Macau participates).

(Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945—1947 excepted.)

Un-necessary at all.

Discuss. SchmuckyTheCat 03:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with every point except the last (removal of the text in parenthesis).
We have separate articles on China, People's Republic of China, and mainland China. Are you proposing to merge all three articles, as you seem to be calling for all instances of the three to be pipelinked?
While the PRC, or a mainland Chinese, will not object to using "China" synonymously with the PRC, he will not object to using the official name in all situations either. On the ther hand, a unification supporter in Taiwan will object to using "China" synonymously with the PRC. And both will object if this term "China" is used a context not to include TW, HK, MO. The current naming conventions keep everyone happy.
Please also note that the guidline also states, 'For organizations and international events, such as the Olympic Games or APEC, official terms should be used. In the case of the Olympics, one refers to the Chinese Taipei team, instead of the "Taiwanese team" or the "ROC team."', so part of your concern is moot.--Jiang 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear: I'm not proposing to change the name of any article, I think using official and descriptive names in article titles has served us well.
I'm referring to text within articles that uses the common name "China" to refer to the PRC. Our policy shouldn't be used as an excuse for edits like this nor a prohibition against edits like this.
As to what a unification supporter wants, that is exactly what Wikipedia:Naming conflict says it not a consideration. You could put China and Taiwan into this example without changing another word. Further, as the naming conflict guideline also states, this current policy prohibiting us from using the term in the same way that most of the world does is the opposite of NPOV, we are allowing one side of the argument to dictate what we call the other side.
Does our prohibition against using "China" to refer to the PRC describe what the world calls the PRC, or does it prescribe a usage about what Wikipedians can say?
I agree about the organization/internationally used names, actually. I think we both agree on that and we're reading past each other. In cases where there is an "official" name, we use it - which is why the prohibition isn't necessary.
We did go through this with the usage of "Taiwan" six months ago and removed a prohibition against using "Taiwan" to refer to the entirety of ROC territory. "Taiwan" is the common name of the ROC. "China" is the common name of the PRC. SchmuckyTheCat 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It can come down to a matter of accuracy. Example 1: the statement "the media in China is tightly controlled by the government" can be disputed on the grounds of accuracy since it implies that TW, HK, MO are not part of China, or they would have been factored into the sentence. Example 2: "the Holy See does not have diplomatic relations with China because it maintains relations with Taiwan" might seem accurate at first, until you visit the Holy See's website to find out that they do maintain relations China! the wrong one.
On the basis of accuracy, Instantnood's edits at here made perfect sense. However, I see less of a problem with using the adjectival forms Chinese/Taiwanese (esp. the latter) than with the noun forms China/Taiwan because a term like "the Taiwanese leader" would not be inaccurate on the grounds that the ROC president does indeed come from Taiwan.
Naming conflict does not adequately apply in this instance because the dispute is between two groups, both of which consider themselves and the other to be Chinese, over whether the term "China" should encompass both governments or just one. This situation is completely different than in the example provided. The PRC and the ROC (before 2000) both claimed to be the China, so are we to go by Wikipedia:Naming conflict by using ridiculous statements such as "During the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, China and China shelled each other at Kinmen"?
The use of "People's Republic of China" is not having one side of the argument dictate the other side. The term "People's Republic of China" is self-identification, in addition to international identification, and is not disputed by the PRC itself. Having one side of the argument dictate the other side would be to force the use of "Communist China" (or even "Red China", "Chicom", or "Communist bandits") under the argument that the ROC hasn't renounced sovereignty over mainland China. --Jiang 07:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of my opinion towards the proposed changes, the changes that user:SchmuckyTheCat had already made previously with no discussion (cf. the thread above) must have to be restored for the time being. Changes to an official guideline made with no discussion is in violation of Wikipedia rules. — Instantnood 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

China categories

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
[15] — Instantnood 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Republic of China

I've made some basic changes to the military related categories, mostly to the ROC side. In general I think this could be extended to many other China-related categories in that it addresses many of the convoluted processes which have been taking place. In accordance with the naming conventions political (and thus military) related issues are listed under ROC rather then Taiwan. I've deleted the old Military of Taiwan category and moved everything there to Category:Military of the Republic of China since the military is considered an affair of state. The hiearchy now goes:

These changes were made out of concerns related to the current category sturcture which has led to many situations where items such as weapons systems from both sides end up being listed together, which in my opinion is confusing and borderline NPOV. I strongly suggest we follow the structure set out in Category:Congo in dealing with articles pertaining to two governments using the same names. If an article applies to both the ROC and the PRC it can be listed under the categories of both. Pertinent historical articles such as Category:Imperial Beiyang Navy ships should be listed under categories corresponding to the government at the time, i.e. Category:Qing Dynasty, which might themselves be organized under Category:Imperial China. I believe it makes far more sense to organize to organize these issues with respect to government, both in terms of the resultant hiearchy and NPOV, for the same reasons why we elect to show current jurisdiction in country infoboxes as opposed to territorial claims. As the top level is still Category:China this does not bring political status into question.

Deleted categories and rationale:

Categories which I strongly suggest retooling:

  • Category:Military of China: "China" in this case is being used as the name of a geographical region. It makes no sense to relist the military forces of the governments in that region in a seperate category. This category now contains mostly subcategories pertaining to historical issues. I suggest reorganizing historical articles to their own sections and subsections, perhaps using Category:Military history of China as the new top level, and referencing pre-1911 articles. Again, we should avoid wanton crosslisting that makes it look as if there's one big military force that uses F-16s and Dongfeng missile's.
  • Category:Military equipment of China: Military equipment utilized by the exisiting governments should be listed under the respective ROC or PRC equipment categories. Historical military equipment (read:pre-1911) can be listed under a historical equipment category under military history. Historical articles which might involve the ROC or PRC may be categorized under Military History of the ROC/PRC categories.

That's all that I can think of off the top of my head at the moment. I'm sorry I didn't push this issue harder earlier, which has allowed the categories to grow into a giant tangled mess. Hopefully we can resolve this issue in a satisfactory manner. -Loren 07:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC) (Transferred and revised 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

Category:imperial Beiyang Navy ships can also be grouped under category:military history of China, or more specifically, category:military history of the Qing Dynasty, which you've neatly done. In addition of the ROC categories, I'd suppose it's necessary to have category:military history of Taiwan, let's say, for the historical military sites on Taiwan during and before Japanese rule. — Instantnood 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Republic of China (Taiwan)"

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am requesting help from other editors on an ongoing dispute including, but not limited to Template:Politics of the Republic of China, Republic of China Army, Republic of China Navy, and Republic of China Air Force. I would like to request input from other editors on what exactly our policy is on the issue of including the common short form. I'd also like to give other people the opportunity to get involved so a community agreement on this can be reached. As I understand it, it is accepted convention to include the common short form for the ROC as [[Republic of China]] (Taiwan) when introducing the ROC, much as varients of [[Republic of Korea]] (South Korea) are used in similar fashions. (From the Political NPOV section of the naming conventions: The former can be listed, depending on context, either as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)".). The aforementioned articles have recently been the subject of a dispute between myself and multiple anon IPs (possibly the same person) over the last few days, who continuously deletes the "(Taiwan)" in the intro paragraphs. The anon has rejected the addition of the short form in parenthesis as well as the aforementioned section from the guidelines as being "offensive" and "misdirecting" readers. The revert war shows no sign of stopping anytime soon. -Loren 19:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Titles of articles to include tone marks?

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments12 people in discussion

Until recently, very few articles had titles that were in Hanyu Pinyin with tone marks. However, in the last few days, quite a number of articles have been moved to titles that do have diacritics. Does this seem right? I have no problem with using diacritics in cases where it is useful for disambiguation, but I think that, in most cases, the meaning is pretty clear and adding diacritics to the title doesn't serve any purpose except to make it harder to type and necessitate more redirects. Thoughts? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese is a tonal language, and romanization of it, such as Pinyin, should properly include tone marks, especially in cases where the tone is all that separates two relevant words, such as the two Jin dynasties. If a page is set up without the tone marks in the title, and then the page is moved to one with tone marks, then people can search for the page by typing without using tone marks, and they'll arrive via a single redirect at a page that displays the pinyin properly (with tones). So there's no problem with typing such names. Dragonbones 07:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ambiguity is not so common in these names, and the classic case of Shanxi versus Shaanxi is done without tone marks. Our articles should be titled in the way the words appear in English-language media. No newspaper writes Máo Zédōng. Kusma (討論) 01:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Tone marks should appear once - after the title in the intro of the article, next to the Chinese characters. That is for reference purposes. Otherwise, in English, we do not use tone marks on pinyin. The tones only show up in Chinese textbooks. --Jiang 08:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang. Tone marks are needed for accurately representing Chinese pronunciation, but our articles are written in English, not in Chinese. HenryFlower 09:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I am sitting on the fence. There are pros and cons on either case. The disadvantages are hard to read title line and people who don't know these tone marks may have trouble finding the articles, but that can be resolved with well placed redirects. One advantage of using the tone mark is that it expands the name space and helps wikipedia to support two different articles that would be sharing the same title otherwise. Kowloonese 21:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ditto with Jiang and HenryFlower. My view on Hanyu Pinyin is that it is a Romanization scheme used to express pronunciations, and not a means of representing the language itself. To me, using tone marks is akin to using IPA to write English: it is an excessive emphasis on something that is merely a guide to the language. Pinyin without tone marks is pretty much the trend in the Anglicization of Chinese names, which is why I'm not calling for retitling articles with Chinese characters, but tone marks seems to be giving too much weight to a concept that really isn't part of either the Chinese or English languages.
Kelvinc 00:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The above comment that tone marks refer to "a concept that really isn't part of ... the Chinese" baffles me. Tone is a fundamental element of Chinese. Almost any pinyin syllable missing the tone marks could be found in the language with more than one alternative tone. Pīnyīn tōne mǎrks ǎre nō hīndrǎnce to réadǎbílǐty. Readers who don't understand them, will sail right through the text, barely noticing them. For other readers, the tones provide critical information. Using a different tone in Chinese is a much more signifant error than mispronunciation in English. The common usage of pinyin without tones in English texts is a matter of convenience to the printer, not a stylistic decision made with readers' needs in mind. Using the tones only on first occurrence in an article will minimally inform the careful reader, but many of the readers of these articles will be learners of the Chinese language. They will appreciate the reminder offered by consistent usage of the tone at every occurrence of the word, at no expense to anyone except the volunteer who took the time to insert it. After all, people are reading an encyclopedia here, not Time Magazine. I find this resistance to tone marks puzzling. Bertport 16:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jiang as well. It's of course most accurate to put the tonal marks in, but would be quite a pain in searching. I would say that a good policy would be that the title itself doesn't have the marks, but the marks should be used in the first sentence, the first time the subject of the article appears. This would solve the ambiguity problem and not create too much trouble in the searching. --Deville (Talk) 04:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My 2 fen: We're looking at an editorial decision here. What I mean is, there are plausible arguments for using tone marks, and plausible arguments against. I don't think that either position one can take on this this is obviously more compelling than the other. The situation is complex: On the one hand there are several well known examples of concepts that are ambiguous when rendered in unadorned pinyin: Shānxī vs. Shǎnxī; the Jìn Dynasty vs. the Jīn Dynasty; Chén Yí vs. Chén Yì; etc. However, it is not clear whether tone marks are really all that helpful in a title: they won't mean anything to readers unfamiliar with pinyin, and anyone with detailed knowledge of pinyin will most likely also want to know the Hanzi. Keep in mind that Hanyu Pinyin is primarily an educational tool to help people learn Standard Mandarin. Pinyin is important to remind readers of pronunciation, but is not sufficient in and of itself for finding further information about the person in a Chinese source. Yes, tones are important, but in a written medium the Hanzi are arguably as important or more. For most of our readers, the present system of distinguishing between Chén Yí and Chén Yì by party affiliation will be more helpful. I think it's safe to say that we would confuse a fair portion of our readers if the only difference between these two article titles were the tone marks on the i's.

Not all ambiguities can be resolved by adding tone marks. For example, there are several people named Zhāng Yì, whose names are not distinguishable by pinyin (including tone marks) alone. In other words, while tone marks do provide additional information which can resolve ambiguities in some cases, they are neither necessary nor sufficient for disambiguation. In all cases we should provide both Hanzi as well as pinyin with tone marks somewhere near the top of the article (as we usually do), but it's not strictly necessary to do so in the title. If we follow standard practice and give both the Hanzi and pinyin in the first sentence of an article, this should be sufficient in most cases. Whether or not tone marks in the title are necessary is ultimately an editorial decision: we can do it either way, but we better make up our minds first, and then implement that decision globally. I'm presently leaning against adding tone marks in article titles, for the reasons above and out of laziness: Since they don't add anything that isn't already in the article itself, a decision to have tone marks in titles would mean a lot of work for not all that much payoff. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/Archive_6&oldid=583201380"