Talk:China/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Preliminary proposal

I would like to propose the following moves and redirects, so as to prepare for a further and official move request for later submission. It is going to involve:

1. China → 'People's Republic of China', and
2. Chinese civilisation (the pre-scrapped version) → 'China (region)', and
3. Either
   • Option A: China (disambiguation) → 'China', or
   • Option B: redirecting China to 'People's Republic of China', with a hatnote directing users to 'China (region)', China (disambiguation), and the Republic of China.

This is going to address common name issues, without compromising the principle of neutrality. 'China' will not immediately be equated with 'People's Republic of China', yet users will get to read the PRC article while looking for 'China' as a common name. It will also avoid the wikineologisim term 'Chinese civilisation'. Please comment on this package. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a complicated mess that doesn't need to happen. The old article was a mess that didn't say anything - which was half the problem. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

This proposal is what the Spanish Wikipedia does over on their site. If it doesn't confuse Spanish speakers, I don't see why it would confuse English speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Because they probably take their layout queues from en. Very few language interwikis make bold naming decisions that depart from en. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That doesn't surprise me. And it means we should be very careful to avoid doing what other wikis do so we don't go round and round in circles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Cyrillic Wikipedia uses China = PRC. Should we change this article now so we don't do what other language Wiki's do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What other language wikis do is irrelevant. Not only are they entirely independent with their own policies but this is a language issue; what happens in Spanish or "Cyrillic" (?) has no bearing here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a determining factor, but it's good for reference. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Which Cyrillic version are you talking about? The Cyrillic alphabet is used by quite many languages. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Do they redirect es:China to es:República Popular China? I think they do. And they got a es:China (región) article, as do the Portuguese (r, d, rdr, prc), Lithuanian (r, d, prc, prc) and German (r, d, rdr, prc) versions. And this wasn't the previous arrangement here at English Wikipedia. (The previous arrangement here was to locate the region article at 'China', like the existing arrangements of the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Dutch, Norwegian (both Bokmål and Nynorsk), Icelandic, Indonesian and Korean versions.) In comparison, the Latin and Gaelic versions got Sinae/Sìona as a disambiguation page (r, d, prc; r, d, prc). Let's call option B the German-Lithuanian-Spanish-Portuguese solution, and option A the Latin-Gaelic solution. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we are in WP:DEADHORSE territory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably better than what we used to have, but not as good as what we seem, hopefully, to be heading towards, which is to have China at, er, "China" and Taiwan at, er, "Taiwan". There really isn't a neutrality issue there that needs to be addressed by this sort of complicated set up. WP:NPOV only comes into play when we look at how we write up the debate about China/Taiwan etc and the history of the division in article text; or if we were proposing to have Taiwan at "Definitely-not-China". N-HH talk/edits 15:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind explain why the article for Britain is located at United Kingdom, the article for Ireland is located at Republic of Ireland, the article for Macedonia is located at Republic of Macedonia, and the article for Holland is located at Netherlands? If your logic should apply, then I don't think there's any neutrality or ambiguity issue with these countries that needs to be addressed by this sort of complicated titles. The accurate and proper names or descriptions of this countries can be dealt with in the texts of the articles, not the titles. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you go and do some research to answer your questions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I bet all of us got the answer. The difference between us is that we stick with the same principle for essentially similar cases. You guys got the burden to explain why you don't apply your rule here to Britain, Holland, Ireland, etc. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We do. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How, when and where? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Britain isn't as common as United Kingdom in various sources (it used to be, but has lost favour), Holland is rarely used in reliable sources, Ireland has two main meaning, of which the island is the primary topic, to the country is disambiguated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither is the PRC the primary topic of 'China', e.g., the sources from the FCO, the World Bank and the Economist suggested above. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No they didn't. A fuzziness over the SARs is irrelevant to whether the entity is China or not. The China they used was still the PRC. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. The data and information in those cases refer only to part of the PRC. Compare this with concepts like Metropolitan France (as opposed to the whole France with all overseas regions and territories), the Lower 48 (of the US, as opposed to all 50 states plus Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc.), European Netherlands (as opposed to the whole Kingdom), (Mainland Portugal, as opposed to the whole Portugal with Madeira and Azores), or more appropriately, the United Kingdom as opposed the whole empire with Bermuda, Isle of Man, the Falklands, Guernsey, etc. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Metro France and lower 48 states etc. not appropriate comparisons. Many companies and the like treat HK/Macau separately from the Mainland (Hong Kong even has its own APEC membership) due to the extremely different laws they have under the two systems agreement. Due to legal oddities they've landed themselves in the position of often being treated as not part of China although they are (like Greenland and the Faroes with Denmark). Companies showing them as separate from China doesn't mean they don't refer to the PRC as China, as for their intents and purposes (business one would assume) they aren't part of it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read a lot about China you can tell the narrow usage of the term 'China' is far more extensive. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My experience, and that of a great many people here, is different. You, and any other user, is free to create their own list of sources, keeping in mind they need to show not only that other uses exist but that the other terms are used significantly enough that the current page is not the primary topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)

Agree. But then the problem is that we cannot even agree on which meaning(s) the word 'China' is referring to in the same source, or on how to determine whether the sources are sufficient to suggest what is/isn't a primary topic. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite sure what China means in most if not all of the links provided before, and they quite clearly showed a primary topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In other words, undo the consensus move because you don't like it. PoV-pushing, much? oknazevad (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But please bear in mind that the move request four months ago was also overturning the earlier consensus - the move debate four months ago was staged because the proposers didn't like the earlier consensus and were pushing their POV. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Suffice to say, I don't support this proposal. The article should remain where it is, per WP:COMMONNAME. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Commonname isn't above all. In comparison, NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And COMMONNAME is part of NPOV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As a general response to this section so far: Is there any thing that we can learn from the German-Lithuanian-Spanish-Portuguese solution, or the Latin-Gaelic solution? Both are logical and sensible, and neither follows the arrangement here at the English version four months ago. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Either is better than the status quo. And the Latin solution seems better. 1.65.157.215 (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think so too. This will facilitate better patrol of incoming links, like Washington, Congo and Georgia. And it demonstrates that neither the geographical area (or Kulturraum, as it's known in the German version) nor the People's Republic is the sole primary topic. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

NC-TW straw poll

A straw poll has been opened on the question of whether WP:NC-TW represents current consensus and so should remain a current guideline. Opine at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#NC-TW straw poll. Shrigley (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that relevant here, given that you consider the primary topic of this article is the People's Republic of China? 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), of which WP:NC-TW is a subsection, is relevant to the articles of both countries, yes. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why don't they propose to break it off from the Chinese conventions? They don't consider Taiwan to be part of China, no matter what China may mean. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Request move archive

The Requested move archive from August 2011 is now at Talk:China/Archive 14. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it cut-and-paste from Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26? And why was the move necessary? The poll was held with the article about the "Chinese civilization", which was located at China. Talk pages should be relocated together with articles. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

fastest-growing economy claim

I think the wording in the the last intro paragraph is misleading: "China has become the world's fastest-growing major economy" implies that it still is the world's fastest-growing major economy. But the numbers in the linked article for "fastest growing" countermand this claim. More generally, I think this intro section could be profitably compared with the intro section of the India article; the latter notes that India continues to struggle with "poverty, corruption, etc." so it seems fair to note here the question of mass suicides, forced detainments, and other human rights issues that are often cited in connection with China. I haven't made any changes to the text of the article, since I do not belong to the wiki community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.7.162 (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the source cited is just a timeline of major events in Chinese history. It should be a comparative look at GDP growth from a reliable source. China is not the fasted-growing economy—not by a long shot—but among major economies (ie. G20), it is. With a better source, the statement is fine. Alternately, it could simply state that China has consistently been among the fastest-growing economies since Deng Xiaoping. As to your other points, feel free to try to craft something, bearing in mind that it should be written concisely (this is a lede, after all) and in a neutral tone. Homunculus (duihua) 04:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy response. I was actually referring to the wikipedia article to which the phrase "fastest growing" in that sentence links. Here is the address for that page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate As you can see, the latest year (2010) posted there has India (a G20 member) as the fastest growing economy. So my confusion arose from the fact that the claim about China's growth rate links to another wiki article that suggests something different. Perhaps the problem is with the linked article rather than the China article, but in either case there is a clear inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.50.115 (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That article doesn't look great. According to the latest data from the Economist China is the fastest growing of any country on the list at 8.9%, with the exception of Argentina (9.1%), but as unofficially their inflation rate is higher than the government figure growth is probably lower as well.

India is down at 6.9%. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Updating the reference to point to the Economist. Homunculus (duihua) 15:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What about this table from The Economist? [1] 203.145.92.208 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2012

add the title of paramount leader. Hu Jintao it is imporant because some earlier leaders like Deng Xiaopeng never held the title of president och general secretary but he held the title of paramount leader and was the one who really was in charge.

194.218.19.104 (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please phrase your request in a 'please change X to Y' format and provide a reliable source for any factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

China is also Common name of PRC+ROC

I am a native Chinese in Mainland China. I know that China is one of common names of PRC in English world, but all people in PRC and ROC know China=PRC is politically wrong. On any English-Chinese dictionary, China is zh:中国 or zh:中华. And in our POV, 中国 is the region of commons:File:China administrative.png or commons:File:ROC Administrative and Claims.svg. As you see, Both PRC and ROC claim each other. In short, China=PRC+ROC=Greater China-Singapore, which is the community's conclusion in Chinese Wikipedia.

This POV is in our mind instead of on English web pages. Will Wikipedia recognize the common name for China other than the English world one? --Atry (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

see FAQ at the top of this talk page. mgeo talk 12:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the PRC is the primary topic of 'China' in the English-speaking world. I speak English as my first language. In most of the occassions that I encountered, the primary topic is either the Chinese mainland (as in the cases of the FCO and the Economist above), or the broader region in general. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

then open a move request. mgeo talk 17:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are a native Chinese in mainland China, then Dalu is the official name of the PRC. That is the most politically correct. And this was brought up also in previous archives. A modern Chinese person just doesn't refer to him/herself as coming from "共和国". So PRC was never truly a common name to begin with. Benjwong (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

But as an obvious relative expert and someone who relatively at least knows a lot about this I've never heard of this term before. For better or for worse it isn't common in English in the UK. And I doubt it's much different in the US or India or any other places with large English speaking populations. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The press in the UK (such as The Guardian, The Scotsman, The Independent and BBC, to name a few) does use terms like 'Chinese mainland' and 'mainland China'. If you aren't familiar with the subject matter here, don't pretend you are, please. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they use it to refer to "mainland China" because Hong Kong and Macau are also part of China, but not mainland China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dalu mentioned above is the word for 'mainland' in northern Mandarin as far as I understand. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Benjwong: To be fair, one could say that people from the mainland wouldn't claim that they come from "人民共和国", though they may say something like "I have a 中华人民共和国 passport" or "he is a 中华人民共和国 citizen". "共和国" itself only means "republic", so of course no one uses that term, since it's vague (it's no more than a synonym of 民国; both are alternate translations of res publica state, the only difference is that "共和国" is a word of Japanese (wasei kango) origin). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to be really fair, conversations regarding politics and passports might use terms like 共和国. But everyday conversations used by regular people just doesn't use those terms at all. Benjwong (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As a native speaker of English residing in Europe (and not an American, apparently), I'd say more than 90% of the time that I come across the name Georgia is about the independent state in Caucasia (instead of the US southern state), and more than 95% of the time with Washington about the US capital (instead of the US state in the Pacific Northwest). So what's the primary topic of Georgia and Washington? Why should we consider the communist republic as the primary topic of China just because the politicians in Washington and London equate them as such? Why don't we consider English sources from the Far East too? 1.65.152.12 (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We considered all sources presented in the source list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I've ever noticed, China is virtually never used in English to mean both the PRC and ROC combined (or indeed any wider area). Also, it's worth saying again that this page is not simply about "the communist republic" - it's about the nation known as China, including all its history, but predicated on the notion that, in 2012, the currently-kind-of-communist PRC is the modern iteration of that nation and is what most people mean when they say "China". This is pretty indisputable stuff; there's no ambiguity as there is with, say, Georgia. And, finally, on the Far East sources point, I just glanced at the Japan Times, Taipei Times and South China Morning Post websites. Yes, a) newspapers don't determine everything here, b) it's not a full or thorough sample, and b) of course they're examples of use rather than explanations of use; but it's a pretty representative and decent starting point. And they all - even the Taipei Times - seem to use "China" and "Taiwan" pretty much as they would use "France", "Japan" etc. Why are we scrabbling around for reasons to be different? N-HH talk/edits 14:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Taipei Times is a Pan-Green, pro-Independence paper. It has a political motive for using "China" and "Taiwan" in the way that they use "France", "Japan", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that is the actual reason why it does prefer "Taiwan/China"; and, in any event, those sources - if there are any - that regularly or primarily use ROC/PRC are as likely to do so from political motives as well. Citing NPOV doesn't really get anyone anywhere; it's a red herring. And I didn't find any that do anyway, from Taiwan itself or elsewhere in the region (and there are of course virtually none in the West that do). N-HH talk/edits 17:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does; Taipei Times uses Taiwan versus China because they're pro-Independence. The sources that would support the ROC as China uses it because it's, you know, an actual reflection of reality: the Constitution of the ROC which calls itself China. That's reality, that's NPOV, it's in the ROC Constitution, it's recognized by people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits under teh 1992 Concensus. That the ROC is China. The POV here, is YOURS. Is it just me or are the people who most fervently defending this move from "China" to PRC are also the ones least informed about what is and what isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. No need to shout and be patronising by the way when you tell me things that I am actually perfectly well informed about. Anyway, sorry, but I cannot take seriously anyone who says explicitly and definitively that "the ROC is China" (as if it were a matter of some deep, objective truth anyway); or who suggests that what the government of a country says, or what terminology it happens to use, necessarily reflects "reality" or is by definition "neutral". And you know what? I don't have a POV, I just look at the terminology used by the overwhelming majority of sources - including the ROC/Taiwanese government itself half the time; or did you not know that? - and suggest following them. N-HH talk/edits 19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's something you should take very seriously. If the ROC itself were ever to declare itself as "not-China", hundreds upon hundreds of ballistic missiles will immediately fly over the Taiwan Strait at the sweet potato shaped island. The PRC recognizes the ROC as China. The ROC recognizes the ROC as China. Only a few of you here seem to have your own POV on this subject and sees the ROC as "not-China".

The issue is about what one word we use as an article title and in much of our written text to describe something (and what that one word generally describes). Too many people want to overcomplicate it by suggesting we are talking about a definitive statement of something's fundamental nature, or what it is or is not recognised as. Anyway, as noted above, those who dislike the current title of the page can open a move request - even if we only have just gone through one. 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The issue is, it doesn't have to be one word. I can be multiple words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Let's rebuild the world. We'll just declare that the PRC has no claim to Taiwan and that the RoC was never on the mainland and holds no claims there. We can inform the UN about our decision so they can write up the official paperwork. Do I have a second for this motion? Hcobb (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No. According to the UN, the ROC ceased to exist on 1st January 1972. It's part of China, officially the People's Republic of China, which succeeded the Republic of China. UN's position is: It just doesn't exist. We don't know and we don't care what'd happened. The flag of China would be used to illustrate UN's founding anyways, with the flags of the Soviet Union, the UK, France, and the Star-Spangled Banner with only 48 instead of 50 stars. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view (= The Netherlands). China = PRC and Taiwan = ROC. Two seprate states, although each state claims that the other is part of their state. And my personal opinion: I think the USA will be angry and starts a diplomatic style roaring and cursing but are effectively powerless when China send its army out to seize Taiwan... Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The ROC claims the Chinese mainland to be part of the ROC. Taiwan doesn't claim the Chinese mainland to be part of Taiwan. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The ROC's claims over mainland China don't have any bearing on the fact that the majority of the world, including the ROC's GIO office, uses Taiwan as a name for the country. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because the term 'Taiwan' is used either as a euphemism of the ROC or as an alternative reference to the 'Free Area', by the ROC itself on its relations with the PRC excluding the special administrative regions (i.e. as defined as the 'Mainland Area' in ROC's legislations), and by governments of other countries. Most countries recognise or acknowledge Beijing's position regarding the ROC, and therefore have no choice but to use the term 'Taiwan'. The United States, in particular, is bounded by its legislation on the definition of the word 'Taiwan' (which doesn't cover Kinmin, Wuchiou and Matsu).

But, all these do not change the fact that 'Taiwan' is only a common name for the contemporary ROC, with no clear and objective cut off point from which onwards the ROC became Taiwanese and no longer Chinese, and Taiwan refers only to part of the geographical extent of the contemporary ROC. Taiwan isn't (or isn't yet) Austrianised and in many occassions the term 'China' is used to refer to a geographical/cutural region that probably covers Taiwan. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that Taiwan is a common name for the contemporary ROC, but isn't that standard Wikipedia naming behaviour? We tend to name articles based on what their subject is currently known as, and make mention of what they were previously known as in the article. If the subject's previous incarnation is significant enough it might even be broken out into its own article, such as the British Empire with United Kingdom, or Yugoslavia with its various independent nations. This discussion really belongs on the ROC page, but I'll mention this here because the ROC discussion is related to the PRC->China move: an important 'first step' question is what the article on the modern state that occupies the island of Taiwan should be called. It's my view that calling it Taiwan is the appropriate answer. The historical details of the ROC can be worked out independently. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Between 1911-1949, there was a place called Great Britain. It's now called the United Kingdom. Between 1911-1949 there was a place called the Republic of China; it's more complicated for the ROC, but, it's now called Taiwan. All ROC articles need to be consolidated into a Taiwan articled. It's time to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.147.78 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Great Britain no longer existed in 1801 when it was succeeded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Republic of China did not become Taiwan in 1949. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The comparison with the United Kingdom was to address concerns by some editors that you can't name an article X unless it was always and forever historically known as X, which is incorrect. You're referring instead to the common name issue. There's considerable evidence that has been provided that the common name of the country in control of the island of Taiwan is also called Taiwan. Wikipedia has a long and well-respected tradition of using common names, which is why you'll find the article on the USA at United States with a redirect from the more official United States of America. Similarly, the official name of Taiwan may well be Republic of China but the common name for the contemporary state is Taiwan, including in use by the ROC government itself, and our policy strongly indicates it should exist at that location. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Republic of China is still the same Republic of China apart from the change in its territorial existence. United States is the common name for the United States of America since its founding in 1776. United Kingdom is the common name for both the UKGBI and the UKGBNI, and in modern usage may cover its predecessors too. Taiwan isn't the common name for the Republic of China at least until the 1970s. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The ROC is a very different country to the one it used to be. And again, whether Taiwan wasn't the common name before, it is now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is very circular arguing, 42.*. This circle consists of the following: 'but we can't call it X because it wasn't always X', 'Here's another example of a country at Y that wasn't always Y', 'but that country is commonly known as Y, X isn't commonly known as X', 'yeah it is, here's evidence', then back to step 1. I've demonstrated A) that Taiwan does not have to have been in use by the subject forever (eg. United Kingdom), and B) that it's widely regarded that Taiwan is the common name for the ROC. You seem to forget the answer to one of those points as soon as you shift focus to the latter, and I'm not convinced that your arguments aren't an attempt to filibuster discussion. As such I won't be replying to your concerns beyond this one. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand no one calls the period of the Republic of China between 1911/12 and 1972 as Taiwan in English (nor in Chinese), even in publications in the 2000s and 2010s. And even after 1978 in the US, Taiwan is only about 99% of the ROC. 116.48.84.248 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

See point A above. Both 42.* and 116.* map to Netvigator in Hong Kong. Sorry, not biting. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is point A? Yes Netvigator has a huge market share in Hong Kong. 116.48.84.248 (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are so many comments struck out or deleted, just because they are made by IP edits with Hong Kong IPs? 61.18.170.151 (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What people are saying is that: the political/technical connotations should not be used in this article. The PRC and ROC are recent creations. "China"/中國 predates them all and extends into the present and future as the region of Chinese people/culture/life/history WITHOUT political aspects. China being used here (this article) only uses PRC, which is another iteration of passing different governing bodies of 中國/"China". Just like how other nations went through different governing entities, it's the same here. What bothers people is the fact that PRC is only one being applied here, even though only currently it is governing the mainland China. Taiwan is China (not in political sense, but historical, "ethnic", and cultural). Also, because people don't use the official terms for states, Taiwan is used colloqially to only refer to the Taiwan island, the people living on Taiwan, and its modern life, culture, etc. -with the political entity attached to the name as a "side-note". People don't like the political connotations and the single PRC government being used in this article cause it is NOT representative of the whole notion of the word China. Maybe another label should be used (move to another name) or the content needs to be revised to be representative of all aspects, not just present-day. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If this was a genuine issue then we'd have great difficultly about Poland - whose location has changed far more substantially than a small island leaving the country. Additionally we write a lot about Taiwan and don't make it clear as to whether it is part of China or not - if Taiwan is part of China then its part of the People's Republic of China, so what's the problem? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What about Armenia? 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The argument is that both Taiwan, Kinmen and Matsu, and Mainland China, are all part of the same cultural and geographical China, in the same way as the two Koreas. Even if we consider the ROC to be no longer illegitimate, "China" as a region is still broader than just the PRC. Shouldn't there be an article on that concept? 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, when used colloquially and generally, the English word China implies the state AND the political entity attached to it. The native notion of "China" or actually 中国/中國, 大陸, 內地 (Middle Kingdom, Mainland, Inland) only implies the REGION of mainland China, or geographic place including the range of people living in "China". It also implies/includes the "modern culture and life", modern "Chinese identity", Chinese diaspora, Chinese history/culture. However when people speak of "China" in political cases, THEN the word China becomes a "political label" referring to the PRC government (governing the Chinese mainland) and its policies. Otherwise, in normal terms (by everyday people), China is used as a cultural/national/historical identity, not for political distinctions. The colloquial English use of "China" does not help non-natives distinguish between the political implications and the regular "place"/"modern culture" implication. The problem with his article is that the lead section does not address the "over-arching" aspect of "China". China is not only a state governed by the PRC government, it refers to the whole identity of the people living mainland and the identity of the diaspora, as in where they are from and the ancestral background. The political aspects of the name China should NOT be applied to the entire article/name/content. Once you make that direct relation, the political aspect of it becomes pulled into the label, and then it fails to make the clear distinction, which makes the article biased. (I hope this made sense and as a part of the Chinese diaspora, I tried to explain the ideology behind this term. The singular inclusion of the PRC government and having only the PRC being applied in this article is what makes this China label have a problem. The PRC is the political and governing entity of China, but it plays no part in the entire Chinese identity being implied when you use the word China outside of political discussions. This article should not have the political situation blur the identity and distinctions of the real meaning. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the well considered explanation of your position. I am generally sympathetic, and considerably more terse. As a practical matter, I still hold that the article 'China' should refer to the civilization, while PRC should refer to the modern state. In the course of this merge, other editors have (commendably) attempted to integrate more material about Chinese history and civilization, which helps address the first point. Yet it makes little sense to me that the article 'People's Republic of China' (which redirects here) should include material on ancient and imperial Chinese history or culture. As I've stated before, my objection to this merge stemmed mainly over this issue, rather than the PRC/ROC question. In any case, I deem you bold to bring up these objections again; I have mostly resigned to the futility of this debate.Homunculus (duihua) 22:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry M0rphzone, but that's not how we roll. India is about the modern nation state, as is Egypt, Italy, Greece and Mongolia - even though all of them have substantial histories.

Additionally China is commonly used by reliable sources to refer to the PRC politically. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Yet it makes little sense to me that the article 'People's Republic of China' (which redirects here) should include material on ancient and imperial Chinese history or culture." - I'm sorry but you are incorrect about this - and this isn't how we handle any other country. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to play devil's advocate here, but the Republic of China—an extant state—contains no information on the history or civilization of either China or Formosa. The page on Formosa, moreover, is about the history, culture, and civilization of the place, not about the current political entity that rules it. Is this an oversight, or is Taiwan given special treatment due to its disputed sovereignty?Homunculus (duihua) 22:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Republic of China isn't a UN recognised state so its not exactly a good example. Additionally the status and content of that article is disputed on the project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Republic of China is not just another non-member of the UN like South Ossetia or Somaliland. It's a remnant of a member state that lost its membership. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It is equally as common as a term to refer to the cultural or geographical entity, which does not coincide with the political PRC. For India, the modern terminology is "South Asia" or "Indian Subcontinent". The Chinese counterpart to the concept of "South Asia" or "Indian Subcontinent is also "China". 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

China as a geographic region isn't 'equally as common as' China as the country. It's certainly a common use but not nearly as widely used. This is because China as a country is far more commonly discussed than China as a region. If the Chinese counterpart to the 'Indian subcontinent' being 'China' is indeed supported by sources, then this would be easily solved by simple disambiguation. China would be occupied by the country, as current, based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the Chinese geographic region would be placed at China (region). This isn't inconsistent with the current article titleTechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If we were to say "China was part of the Allied forces during WWII", who would we be talking about? The country? The region? The government? If we were to say "China ceded Hong Kong to Great Britain in the 19th century," who would we be talking about? The country? The region? The government? If we were to say "China fought a battle with Vietnam in the 1970's," who would we be talking about? The country? The region? The government? If we were to follow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this article should be called "People's Republic of China". Because, going by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "China" encompasses both the Qing, the ROC and the PRC. And while the Qing disappeared 100 years ago, the ROC still exists and should hold equal status with PRC as occupiers of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case do you oppose the existence of an article on the region? 203.145.92.208 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The equivalent of South Asia is East Asia (note that South Asia includes more than the old India). Also, if more than just the country is referred to, terms like Greater China and Sinosphere are used in English. CMD (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Greater China is almost used exclusively in economic and financial matters. Sinosphere is much broader as it may cover countries like Korea and Vietnam, and probably the Ryukyu Islands and Japan. Yes South Asia can be broader than just India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, it's somehow used interchangeably with Indian Subcontinent. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I for one oppose any suggestion that the Republic of China should be moved to Taiwan. To do so would be to ignore a plain truth: The Republic of China is far more than just Taiwan Province. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Talk:Republic of China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 18 February 2012

In the foreign relations section, I would like to add information about the role played by China in the war in Darfur and the county's relations with the Sundanese regime as well China's relations with the Syrian regime and its role in the current events in Syria.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/18/china-backs-assad-syria-attacks?newsfeed=true http://www.news24.com/World/News/Russia-China-Syria-veto-condemned-20120205 Eyaszk (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You need to make a specific, detailed request to use the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Then someone will insert your text into the article unless there is a problem. Alternatively, you could wait four days and make nine more edits to become autoconfirmed and able to edit semi-protected articles yourself. Thanks and welcome, Celestra (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to move ROC article to "Taiwan"

A vote on the above proposal is being voted on here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_China#Responses Wider involvement by Wikipedia Community would be desirable. 86.42.28.118 (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Intro length

Respecting that this is of course one of the most important articles in Wikipedia, I just wonder if that and the length of the whole article are sufficient justification to have the Lead longer than the one recommended in the Lead Length MoS? It should ideally be four paras presumably? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Reduce. The Sound and the Fury (talk)

FAQ answer saying retitling due to need for NPOV

The FAQ answer should say the title is due to WP:COMMONNAME, ie "Because we use the common name to title our articles and the overwhelming usage of "China" is to refer to the People's Republic of China." No need to say more than that. To claim that NPOV requires the equating of "China" and the PRC is dubious. Yes, this has been discussed before, but that's the point: the FAQ answer should reflect the discussion and the primary argument for the retitling was WP:COMMONNAME not WP:NPOV. This is not a trivial point because WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles whereas WP:NPOV's scope extends to text. It is unhelpful to supply fodder to those seeking to change PRC to China in other articles by stating here that "China" "follows our neutrality policies [and PRC does not]." Such a declaration is too general.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What if we replace the word "follows" with "is consistent with"? Would that fix your concern? "Neutrality" is, broadly speaking, a principle that applies to aspects of Wikipedia beyond article text. Mlm42 (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it is "consistent with" WP:NPOV. It's consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. There should not be an implication that "China" should be used in in contexts where WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. It could be used but that depends on the circumstances; it is not neutral in all contexts.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's consistent with our neutrality titles as it meets WP:POVTITLE. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is part of WP:COMMONNAME.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased...This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and other relevant guidelines such as geographical names)." CMD (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ answer doesn't say the use of China "follows our neutrality policies for titles" it says the use of China follows our neutrality policies period.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the link goes to that section and its talking about titles it's pretty obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I take this as not objecting to adding "for titles" as it would not change things substantively.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"this title follows our neutrality policies for titles" would be redundant. There's no reason to add it. CMD (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be a pretty small concession to those who have concerns about the scope of the retitling. The current implication is that the title is neutral. In fact, WP:NPOV allows for non-neutrality for titles when outweighed by other concerns, which isn't the same thing as saying titles primarily chosen on the basis of a WP:COMMONNAME rationale are neutral.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't help any point of view. What the policy says is that "the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias...If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English)...it may be used even though some may regard it as biased". Appearance of bias is not bias. On the other hand, the FAQ grammar isn't great, so how about "Because we use the common name to title our articles, in line with our neutrality policy. China is overwhelmingly used to refer to the People's Republic of China"? CMD (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it does help. It prevents the Republic of China to be moved to Taiwan which Taiwan is not an independent sovereign state from China as Taiwanese independence has not been gained nor I do recall the Republic of China ever losing the Chinese Civil War as it only retreated to Taiwan and the lesser islands. This reimplements the ROC/PRC/China format which supports the ROC's claims to China while honoring the PRC's claims and control over Mainland China. This supports neutrality over the issue.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My grammar isn't that great so I'm definitely happy with alternative wording. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no particular objection but as CMD says it would be redundant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"Culture of Obedience to the State"?

I guess whoever wrote this knows nothing about the concept of the mandate of heaven. It really shows a very profound ignorance in regards to Chinese culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.63.125 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede

The common name of this article is China, because the move of PRC --> China was made on the basis of common name -- that is, sources commonly refer to the PRC as China. Nevertheless, the primary subject matter of this article remains the People's Republic of China (as the fact box indicates) and not any other China, including the Republic of China. This distinction needs to be made clear in the lede. For the foregoing reason, I have changed the lede back to the following:

The People's Republic of China, commonly referred to as China or the PRC (/ˈtʃaɪnə/ ^ⓘ; Chinese: 中国; pinyin: Zhōngguó), is the world's most populous country with a population of over 1.3 billion.

NumbiGate (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC) revised again NumbiGate (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the guidelines on this are simple and clear. Where there is a common name that's used for the title it should the subject of the first sentence, or otherwise mentioned as early as possible. This is for clarity and consistency: the not insignificant number of readers who know the country only by its common name "China" will be reassured they've got to the right article. See WP:LEADSENTENCE and WP:BOLDTITLE for details and examples.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A counterexample lies at nearly every Western person whose common name (where the article title is at) is not their full name. NumbiGate's (and the former) set-up makes it much clearer that this article is about the PRC, which is what most readers are looking for. GotR ^Talk 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Other country articles are of course the more relevant comparison. See France, Iran, India etc. See also the country project's recommended format for a lead. N-HH talk/edits 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@John Blackburn and N-HH, the rules you cite are not so inflexible as to prevent greater precision and accuracy in the presentation of information. John Blackburn, but the guidelines aren't that simple. For First sentence, the Wikipedia Manual of Style says, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[Note] However, if the article title is merely descriptive . . . the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." China in the title of this article is serving as a descriptive common name for the People's Republic of China. In the Note, the rule provides the example of the United Kingdom:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe.

N-HH, the rule you cite, also gives the example of the United Kingdom and the United States. Those two countries' common and official names happen to be synonymous, and the sequence in which they appear in the lead sentence is done for the ease of presentation only. In the case of China, however, the common name and the official name of the PRC are not entirely congruent, so it is even more important to distinguish the primary topic of the article from the common name used in the article title. There is no ambiguity with the country names of France, India and Iran. There is for China.

For the foregoing reasons, I have reversed John Blackburn's undo. NumbiGate (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For more evidence of what this article is about (the primacy of the People's Republic of China), look to the hatnote and the heading of the factbox. NumbiGate (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you can't just ignore guidelines without good reason.first you have misunderstood what it means by "merely descriptive". It is meant to cover things like Provinces of the People's Republic of China, which are not titles (there is no one thing called "Provinces of the People's Republic of China") but describe the contents. The title of this article is "China" which is the English name for the country. It is not descriptive.

As for the other articles they conform to the guidelines as e.g. United Kingdom does start "The United Kingdom". But in any case what individual articles do is less important than the guidelines, not only the ones I mention above but the additional country-specific guidelines. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry the English name for this country is the People's Republic of China. The common name is China but there is ambiguity therein, so it is more precise to begin the lede by specifying that China in the title is a common name that is referring to the People's Republic of China. That is a perfectly valid reason to deviate from the template to which you have cited, which itself says, "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." (emphasis added). You can't ignore the UK and US leads. Furthermore, let me redirect your attention to WP:LEADSENTENCE --

The third bullet point says, "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms."

If you think China and PRC are synonyms for the People's Republic of China, you should not have any objections to the US / UK lede format. NumbiGate (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the official name for the country is the "People's Republic of China" just like the official name for the UK is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

For the the lead of United Kingdom says "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[note 5] (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain)" and the United States says "The United States of America (also called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States)" for me - so there is a precedent. Although France says "France (English i/ˈfræns/ franss or /ˈfrɑːns/ frahnss; French: [fʁɑ̃s] ( listen)), officially the French Republic" and India says "India (i/ˈɪndiə/), officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य, Bhārat Gaṇarājya)," and Germany says "Germany (i/ˈdʒɜrməni/), officially the Federal Republic of Germany". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The name is also 'China', and as that's by far the most common and clearest name for the country it's the title of this article. It's not at all ambiguous: yes there are many places with "China" in the name but that's also true of "England" or "France". It does not make those country names ambiguous. This was all worked out at the recent move, which I suggest you review as you are clearly unfamiliar with the arguments.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You say "The name is also 'China'" so you seem to believe that China is a synonym for the People's Republic of China and the PRC. That by itself satisfies the third bullet point of the rule you've cited to, which allows the UK / US formulation of the lead sentence. And once again, let me repeat: "China" could also refer to the Republic of China, another sovereign state whose name not only resembles that of the People's Republic of China but whose history and national claim also overlaps with that of the PRC. This is a source of ambiguity that the move of PRC-->China on the basis of Common Name did not resolve, and this is a type of ambiguity that is different from New England to England. NumbiGate (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody ever uses the term China (or frankly Republic of China) to refer to Taiwan in English.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead, the UK / US formulation of the lead is independent of usage of the lead term. One could say that "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is used relatively infrequently, but that, as you have recognized, does not preclude the term from introducing the lead of the United Kingdom article.

Also, be careful about using absolute characterizations like "nobody ever". I refer you to the English language stock share offering prospectus for Chunghwa Telecom[2] prepared by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and UBS Investment Bank in 2006. The cover page describes Chunghwa Telecom as "a company limited by shares in the Republic of China" and says "the American depositary shares" sold in the offering "are not being offered in the Republic of China." On page 3, the prospectus goes on to say:

• All references to "Taiwan" are to the island of Taiwan and other areas under the effective control of the Republic of China.
• All references to "the government" or "the Republic of China government" are to the government of the Republic of China.
• All references to the "National Communications Commission" are to the National Communications Commission of the Republic of China.
• All references to the "Securities and Futures Bureau" are to the Securities and Futures Bureau of the Financial Supervisory Commission of the Republic of China or its predecessors as applicable."
• "ROC GAAP" means the generally accepted accounting principles of the Republic of China (emphasis added). NumbiGate (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, so the term "Republic of China" is used where required in legal documents and for accounting purposes. Regardless the term "China" certainly isn't used in those circumstances to refer to Taiwan, and frankly they are pretty limited even for the term Republic of China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, if you look long enough you can find something written by lawyers that uses the name "Republic of China". Except they make it clear that the country is called "Taiwan": "All references to "Taiwan" are to the island of Taiwan and other areas under the effective control of the Republic of China." And none of that changes the fact that this article is about the country "China", as it says in the article title.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

John Blackburne, you still have not responded to bullet 3 of WP:LEADSENTENCE, which expressly authorizes the UK / US formulation for the lede. Therefore the approach that I have put forth conforms with the "guidelines." You have not been able to dispute the greater precision of this approach. NumbiGate (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is precedent for both wordings. Frankly I don't care between them but it would be good to have some more input. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no 'greater precision' as "China" is precise and unambiguous. It would not be the article title otherwise. As for the guidelines, the most relevant one, which explicitly says what should happen, is WP:BOLDTITLE: "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence". "China" is the widely accepted name for the country (otherwise, again, it would not be the article title), so it should go first.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The United States of America is the formal name and is more precise than the "United States", "USA", "the States" etc. even though the latter terms are more widely used. The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the formal name and is more precise than the "United Kingdom" and "UK", even though the latter pair is more widely used. The "People's Republic of China" is the formal name and is more precise than "China" or the "PRC", even though the latter pair is more widely used. You should not confuse wide usage with precision. The title of this article was changed from the People's Republic of China to China to accommodate the presumption that most readers, when they are looking up China, are actually looking for the People's Republic of China. Hence the article title change was based on common name. "China" is less precise and less formal than the "People's Republic of China". NumbiGate (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You keep on asserting that "China" is less precise but you've yet to produce any evidence of this. But again, this was all covered during the move discussion: China is clear and precise in English. If you have good evidence this has changed a move request would be appropriate but I really doubt it has changed much since the article was moved only a few months ago.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This does seem somewhat like a bid to rehash the recent move debate, or rather rehash the arguments used there in order to push a change of pretty limited consequence, which seems to be against best and most common practice, even if you can find some examples that would appear to justify it. Best for those pushing it to just let it lie, surely? N-HH talk/edits 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONCEPTDAB says this article must cover all related meanings of the term "China". If this is more expansive than the People's Republic of China, which it is, then the lede should be written in a way to reflect this. Narrowing the scope of the article to the People's Republic of China only is not supported by WP:CONCEPTDAB.

Perhaps define People's Republic of China in paragraph one, and define subsidiary meanings separately in paragraph two.--Jiang (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

But this article is not on a broad concept, as described at WP:CONCEPTDAB. This article is about a very concrete thing, the country called China. One can quibble about its exact boundaries but that's true of any country. Other notable uses of the word are listed at China (disambiguation), linked at the top of the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. As noted, this is rehashing old arguments and seems to be about post-move death twitches or theoretical wrangling about what the "real China" is rather than anything constructive. For countries, we build on the common name and current broadly accepted iteration of that common name entity, with appropriate history and backstory (fairly broad brush in the lead itself; maybe specific sections and links to specific, other articles further in). Currently the lead does exactly that - it starts with the PRC and then, correctly, discusses the Taiwan/ROC issue and then the history. I don't see what the problem is - are you asking for a kind of almost-bullet-pointed dictionary-style entry? Iran does not define the Islamic Republic in para 1 and then say, explicitly in narrative text, "but Iran can also refer to historical Persia and to a broader cultural area"; France does not define the current Republic in para 1 and then say "but France can also refer to the Ancien Regime; or the Frankish empire, when it had much larger boundaries". They simply build those assumptions into the way the article as a whole is written and constructed. N-HH talk/edits 14:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You have valid points regarding the content and scope of country article lede sections. But two points here: First, the old China article no longer exists, so this article must cover its content to serve incoming links. Second, the form "Blah, officially known as Big Blah" is actually unconventional when compared to other Wikipedia articles e.g. Snoop Dogg. It has always been the convention endorsed by the Manual of Style to start out with the formal name and then introduce the common name as a parenthetical clause of the same sentence. This convention was followed for over half a decade by Wikipedia's country articles. Someone, around the years 2008-2010 singlehandedly decided to introduce the "Blah, officially known as Big Blah" into country articles without consultation at WikiProject Countries. There is no such requirement of consistency to use this unconventional opening sentence. And I think "Blah, officially known as Big Blah" conveys slightly less information than "Big Blah, commonly known as Blah" --Jiang (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

N-HH, you're overlooking an independent rationale for the lead of country articles to begin with the official name of the country. When a country is referred to by two or more common names or abbreviations, the official name often precedes its various other names and abbreviations in the lead. See United States, United Kingdom, Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo as examples. In this article, the country commonly called China is also officially known as the People's Republic of China and is frequently referred to as "the PRC". See also Federated States of Micronesia which uses the official name in the lead to distinguish FSM from Micronesia. NumbiGate (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

But you're overlooking the fact that we do not have two or more common names or abbreviations here. "China" is unequivocally the primary description or term used for the country - People's Republic of China/PRC sometimes follows for variety, or in occasional specific contexts, when a clear distinction is needed; but is not the usual term or an equally frequent alternative. Nor am I convinced that the US and UK articles open the way they do for the reasons you state. As said, the usual format for "Islamic/Democratic/Federal Republic of Ruritania"-type countries is to have the short-form name "Ruritania" not only as the title but as the first mentioned name. I can't see that it's worth asking or edit-warring for change to that formula here. N-HH talk/edits 13:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Provinces of the People's Republic of China

• This image is also used in the en:Provinces of the People's Republic of China, it shows provincial level division in the law, not showing it is under control or not. It is very funny that Taiwan is a province in the article but the map has no Taiwan in it.user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington keep reverting the image to the version of no Taiwan and no China-India arguing territory, it is not neutral, especially he seems from India and as a administrator on the English Wikipedia. Check India, why dont remove the part of territory claimed by China map out? Werran2 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And he was threatening block my account btw (tho im not a "single purpose account"), check my talk page.Commons:user talk:Werran Werran2 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that it's also ruining the China and Provinces of the People's Republic of China pages, because now there is a chunk of white nothingness that links to Taiwan Province, PRC. What is their justification for the change? I don't think it's a necessary thing to do. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should follow usual practice for disputed territories here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should worry about being blocked Werran. I opened the discussion at commons ages ago, glad to see participation now. CMD (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick, as an administrator involved in a content dispute with you, has no right to block your account. GotR ^Talk 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently the India article's maps display all of India's territorial claims; I think exclusion here is somewhat of a double standard. If the claims were removed from the India article as well, then those changing the map have somewhat of a justification for their actions, but currently it seems quite inappropriate for the grey areas to be removed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, will take that as consensus then, on this page and commons. The locking admin has not responded to my query, so we'll have to wait for protection to expire before changing it back. CMD (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've contacted Nicholas on his Commons talkpage asking him to provide an explanation either here or on the Commons file talkpage; I don't think he's keen on doing so, from the looks of things. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this recent post by the sockpuppet earlier. I have been asking involved parties to start a discussion here for the past couple of months to no effect. Glad that you have all found time to comment. I have started a thread below, please feel free to join in. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The past couple of months? Kondicherry's first edit was one month ago. Also, if you're going to call someone a sockpuppet, you should substantiate it. CMD (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Geography of Taiwan link

ILVTW, you need to explain why inclusion of this link implies Taiwan is part of China. Unless I am badly mistaken, the template {{see also}} is not to meant to have any political overtones. GotR ^Talk 05:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok.. As long as you are able to do so in PRC topic for extra template, should we do the same for other China-related topic as Hongkong, Macao, even ROC to cover extra templates for each segments? That's not relevant and totally redundant--ILVTW (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite the logical fallacy there. Taiwan can fairly be considered a subset of China's land area, which in turn is a superset of Hong Kong, Macau, and the ROC. {{see also}} does not make ANY statement other than "Another article is related to this one". In addition, no one else (not even those ambivalent to whether Taiwan is part of China) even tried to remove this link, so I continue to wonder what is your problem here—it may be that you are strongly Pan-Green and refuse to admit it? GotR ^Talk 05:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

By the principles for we editors, no one can set a "superset" as an issue still remain in dispute. For this case, you told me the extra template isn't mean to have political overtone... and now you say Taiwan should be regard as a "subset" of a topic refering to the PRC. why are you such contradictory?? And making a subset for a geography part??--ILVTW (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous here and again stating that I said A when I said B. By explaining the superset business, I was merely totalling doing away with any possibility of "doing the same for other China-related topic as Hongkong, Macao, even ROC to cover extra templates for each segments".

The move from PRC to "China" was followed by the merging of nearly all content at the old [[China]] article into the new one; that page move was a MERGE, not just a simple change of titles. So the notion that this article is about the PRC and nothing else is impish nonsense. GotR ^Talk 06:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Even whether Taiwan in part of the People's Republic of China is disputed. Lots of international organisations take that as their official line so we are pushing a POV if we explicitly say that Taiwan isn't part of the People's Republic of China.

We should of course label it differently from territory the People's Republic currently controls but it shouldn't be entirely removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely Taiwan's inclusion/disinclusion should be dealt with in the main geography article, and fall under that anyway? CMD (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

File:J-10a zhas.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Kept as per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:J-10a zhas.png

---

An image used in this article, File:J-10a zhas.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:J-10a zhas.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just out of curiosity

Just out of curiosity, what happened to the old "China" article that existed before the move? Was it deleted? I'll probably delete this section after someone answers.Nanib (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

chinese civilization. History of China hbdragon88 (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It was moved to Chinese civilization and has since disappeared into a tiny dab page.

The move discussion is now here: Talk:China/Archive 14, with some more of it here: Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 24, Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 25. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

After the page moved to Chinese civilization, it had been teared down into numerous parts and intergrated into different articles. For details, refer to move discussions which links given by Petri Krohn. p.s. better not to delete this section and leave the section as an archive/log. C933103 (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote - Taiwan/ROC

Obviously the long-awaited - and needed - switch from ROC to Taiwan was always going to have some reverberations and lead to both some oddities and further changes. I can't help but think that this reformulated hatnote doesn't quite work, since it suggests that Taiwan somehow used to run China - which is true in the sense that the broader ROC did. But I can't think of the best way to rephrase it, and whether perhaps it should even link to a different target (the ROC History or Government page?) N-HH talk/edits 16:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I expect a broad scope ROC article will emerge. I'm not especially concerned where this hatnote points for a few days at least. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The only reason for having a hatnote is for disambiguating the title, and the reason it's there is as the PRC and ROC are quite similar names. That Taiwan is related because until 1949 it ran China means it should be mentioned in the History section along with the many other previous powers in China, or (if the article were not so comprehensive) in the 'See also' section. So I have revised it to make the association with the title.

The other option would be removing the link to Taiwan from the hatnote altogether: now the pages have been moved no-one should get "Taiwan" and "China" confused. Both are listed at China (disambiguation) for those unsure if they want the PRC or ROC.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see the logic for the hatnote, and even for the link to modern Taiwan/ROC, but it's the reference to the history that's a problem - both because it reads oddly when then referring to Taiwan and because there's no obvious reason to single out one bit of historical China anyway (as noted, that's for the history section). Anyway, I agree with this change .. which is exactly the one I was about to make myself before being beaten to it! N-HH talk/edits 17:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Right. Taiwan was one of the many powers that had a presence in China, along with the Japanese, the Brits, the Manchus, the French, the Germans, the Mongols, the Khitans, the Göktürks, and the Russians. Taiwan ran the majority of China for three and a half decades and had its capital there. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly nothing wrong with such a hatnote, since you and the rest of the camp have argued that Taiwan is Republic of China and Republic of China is Taiwan. What happened decades ago are irrelevant. Taiwan is the common name of the ROC. This is the predominant usage in the English language as of 2012. As a result of the RM we should all stick with this definition. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. And now we have an edit war. I'm regretting even asking the question. Anyway, we have two of us agreed that a short, concise disambiguation offering people a route to Taiwan, officially ROC, is fine. We don't need the lengthy references to history (added by Jeffrey, not John btw Cybercobra) and/or misleading and anachronistic references to Taiwan ruling China (per Cybercobra's version). N-HH talk/edits 17:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Restored to a proper name disambiguation. There are polices that cover this: WP:Hatnote#Examples of improper use say that links should not include either excessive details (such as precise dates) or be to related topics. Taiwan is there because Republic of China and People's Republic of China are similar names. No other reason. The much more complex and involved historical association should be mentioned in the appropriate sections, not in the hatnote which is only for disambiguating names.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan is there because the ROC was commonly known as China. Many links point at 'China' are referring to the ROC, which, according to RM's result, is now known commonly as Taiwan. Taiwan's official name and its similarity with 'People's Republic of China' are irrelevant. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There ought be no such wikilinks, but readers may well be looking at old publications from when "China" still referred to the ROC. The (P)RoC vs. RoC doesn't factor in here due to WP:NAMB. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Taiwan is there because of the similarity of the PRC and ROC. On links if they are wrong fix them. But I would think there are very few if any, as that usage for 'China' went out of fashion decades ago, long before any of Wikipedia was written. If you think they are not ambiguous then Taiwan should be removed altogether (it's still prominently listed in the DAB page for those who are looking for "?? Republic ?? China" but don't think this is the right article). --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Capital idea! It's dated enough that we can just defer to the dab page. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misreading that section of WP:HATNOTE. It's referring to what use the hatnote refers to, not to the disambiguatory summary used. I would say just "pre-1949", but that's ambiguous with the Qing and all predecessors. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As for the links, don't forget that this page includes details on when China as a whole was run as the Republic of China. People got very confused during the move debates on the basis of thinking that this page was simply and solely about the modern PRC. It's not, it's about the whole thread of Chinese history, as the backstory to the PRC in 2012. Hence a) such links from historical references to China to this page are not necessarily wrong, depending on the precise context; and more on-topic b) we don't need an extended hatnote delving into the history. And claims about Taiwan "ruling" China are outright misleading as well as inappropriate for a hatnote - Cybercobra, consensus is against you. Please stop edit-warring over this. N-HH talk/edits 18:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

About China#Politics

I think parts of this article should be flagged as {{Disputed}} or {{POV}}.

"The People's Republic of China, along with Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, and Cuba), is one of the five remaining Communist states in the world."

Is in my opinion not correct and the sources given are very bad. The first source is a political opinion on Communism during the cold war. The second link is about "The Rise and Fall of Communist Nations 1917-1994" and was written in 1996. Neither fit the guidelines given in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources and are actually not even about modern day China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J12m (talk • contribs)

Officially its still communist - read its constitution..... --TIAYN (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Currently named" intro

Is it just me or does the phrase "currently officially named the People's Republic of China" in the intro paragraph sound rather odd? I can't find any other articles on countries with a similar phrasing, and - at the risk of overanalyzing what might not have been a conscious decision - it seems like a rather loaded phrasing in the sense that it seems to discredit the name rather as somehow illegitimate and unlikely to last. --87.55.111.25 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's rather clumsy wording. 'currently' is unnecessary and suggests there's some other name that's normally used, which is incorrect. 'named' is also unneeded as it's clear from context it's the official name. I've removed both accordingly, and think it now reads much better.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Chinese map as depicted in the article

Provinces of the People's Republic of China

The text below has been moved from Archive 15, so that earlier discussion is not omitted.

• This image is also used in the en:Provinces of the People's Republic of China, it shows provincial level division in the law, not showing it is under control or not. It is very funny that Taiwan is a province in the article but the map has no Taiwan in it.user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington keep reverting the image to the version of no Taiwan and no China-India arguing territory, it is not neutral, especially he seems from India and as a administrator on the English Wikipedia. Check India, why dont remove the part of territory claimed by China map out? Werran2 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And he was threatening block my account btw (tho im not a "single purpose account"), check my talk page.Commons:user talk:Werran Werran2 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that it's also ruining the China and Provinces of the People's Republic of China pages, because now there is a chunk of white nothingness that links to Taiwan Province, PRC. What is their justification for the change? I don't think it's a necessary thing to do. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should follow usual practice for disputed territories here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should worry about being blocked Werran. I opened the discussion at commons ages ago, glad to see participation now. CMD (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick, as an administrator involved in a content dispute with you, has no right to block your account. GotR ^Talk 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently the India article's maps display all of India's territorial claims; I think exclusion here is somewhat of a double standard. If the claims were removed from the India article as well, then those changing the map have somewhat of a justification for their actions, but currently it seems quite inappropriate for the grey areas to be removed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, will take that as consensus then, on this page and commons. The locking admin has not responded to my query, so we'll have to wait for protection to expire before changing it back. CMD (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've contacted Nicholas on his Commons talkpage asking him to provide an explanation either here or on the Commons file talkpage; I don't think he's keen on doing so, from the looks of things. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this recent post by the sockpuppet earlier. I have been asking involved parties to start a discussion here for the past couple of months to no effect. Glad that you have all found time to comment. I have started a thread below, please feel free to join in. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The past couple of months? Kondicherry's first edit was one month ago. Also, if you're going to call someone a sockpuppet, you should substantiate it. CMD (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The text above has been moved from Archive 15, so that earlier discussion is not omitted.

break

Hi all, there is an annoying bit of POV pushing going on both on the Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia over what constitutes the divisions of the People's Republic of China. This includes one of the recent edits made by User:ASDFGH where he has altered the image linking to the template from the Commons. Please see a history of the original image listed below to understand what has transpired over the last few months.

• See commons:File:China administrative.svg and commons:File talk:China administrative.svg

I have listed the different versions below in chronological order with a brief description.

• 20:03, 28 July 2011 by commons:User:Quigley (or User:Shrigley). Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin greyed out to show as disputed.
• 11:50, 13 September 2011 by User:Chipmunkdavis. Chipmunkdavis yellowed out Aksai Chin with the following rationale: "Yellowing areas which are controlled by China, as since they were grey it gave the impression China only claimed them".
• 13:04, 5 February 2012 by User:Kondicherry. Kondicherry coloured out different portions to mark out existing disputes.
• 15:48, 5 February 2012 by User:Chipmunkdavis. Chipmunkdavis reverted with the following rationale: "Reverting to simpler uncoloured version. It's misleading to show Indian controlled territories claimed by China as similar to Chinese controlled territories claimed by India, and the legend distracts from the purpose of the map, which is simply to show Ch"
• 16:56, 5 February 2012 by User:Kondicherry. Kondicherry reverted to the grey version of the map with Aksai China, Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan greyed out with the following rationale: "this is a far neutral representation of disputed territories, if you have issues discuss on talk page"
• 17:46, 5 February 2012 by User:Chipmunkdavis. Chipmunkdavis reverted him shortly thereafter with the following rationale: "It's not more neutral, it confuses two very different situations."
• 08:56, 6 February 2012 by User:Kondicherry. As a response to the former revert, Kondicherry took out Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan from the image while leaving Aksai Chin intact as a yellowed out portion along with the rest of the map.
• 01:11, 7 February 2012 by User:Chipmunkdavis. Chipmunkdavis reverted yet again with the rationale: "The claimed areas are part of how China has legally divided itself"
• 06:12, 7 February 2012 by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (that's me). At that point of time, the image came to my attention and I reverted it to Kondicherry's version with the following rationale: "Reverted to version as of 08:56, 6 February 2012 / Revert to neutral version, nothing "legal" about a map that pushes one government's viewpoint. Please take this to w:en:Talk:China"
• 18:03, 7 February 2012 by User:Chipmunkdavis. Chipmunkdavis swooped in thereafter to revert back to his version with the following rationale: "This is simply a reflection of the administrative divisions, and how well they hold in reality. (If you want to use en.wiki discussion, follow en.wiki codes, such as BRD)"
• 21:06, 7 February 2012 by User:Logicwiki. Logicwiki reverted Chipmunkdavis with the following rationale: "POV pushing. Please don't revert again. and discuss on the enwp talk page"
• 09:14, 22 February 2012 by commons:User:Werran. After a few days, a single purpose sockpuppet account reverted back to Chipmunkdavis's version without an edit summary.
• 23:06, 22 February 2012 by User:Denniss. Denniss reverted the SPA sock to the version prior to that.
• 13:46, 23 February 2012 by commons:User:Werran. The sockpuppet SPA reverted again without a rationale.
• 18:53, 24 February 2012 by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. At that point, I reverted the SPA sock again.
• 14:20, 27 February 2012 by commons:User:Werran
• 19:57, 27 February 2012 by User:Beria. Finally Commons administrator Beria reverted the map to the version it was on prior to this little edit-war and protected the image.

Unfortunately, this has resulted in attempts such as the one I have highlighted above to alter the image linked to from the PRC template to reflect a version preferred by the Government of the PRC. Interested users are invited to comment below. I am also contemplating initiating an RfC on the issue. Thanks all. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't appear to grey out the territory controlled by India and claimed by Pakistan (source). So I see no problem with Chipmunkdavis' changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We have a similar practice for all orthographic projections. Political maps must be differentiated. See this map on political divisions of India for further reference: File:Political map of India EN.svg. As Kondicherry pointed out on the image talk page, this is how the political map has been depicted on a featured article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Benlinsquare has already informed the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject China regarding the existence of the dispute on the talk page of the noticeboard (without bothering to comment here about such notification). I have gone ahead and notified other participants on the talk page of the India noticeboard and the talk page of Wikproject Taiwan since this involves depiction of territories administered by the respective countries.

I have also summarized my contentions below:

• If disputed territories are to be highlighted on the map in grey color, then all the three areas – Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan should be included, not just Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan. As a neutral project, we are supposed to reflect mainstream consensus over on-the-ground realities, not how PRC "divides itself legally".
• If only administrative divisions of the PRC are to be reflected, then Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan should be left out of the map.
• The Chinese border with Bhutan and Tajikistan is still disputed and the situation is unresolved, and therefore it should be marked as such.

The few proposed versions are highlighted below:

• Territorial status clearly highlighted with details and legend including Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan
• Disputed areas marked in grey including Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan
• Aksai Chin yellowed along with PRC and Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan removed

CMD's proposed version:

• Aksai Chin yellowed along with PRC while Arunachal and Taiwan greyed out as claimed territories

— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Do not call me "a single purpose sockpuppet account" again, Nearly Headless Nick, "this is the first and final warning", just what you told me. I had read(found no one agree your edition) and left message in the commons talk page of the image and then I reverted it. Lavender Poison※Leaf 06:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

#Provinces of the People's Republic of China. As a summary, this is a simple map trying to show China's provinces. Internal subdivisions are something which countries almost always decide on their own. This is the basis of the map provided. However, as noted, China doesn't control all of its claimed territory. Due to this the areas which aren't controlled are greyed out. This is a fully accurate representation of "mainstream consensus over on-the-ground realities". This is actually exactly what the India map does, with the India map having a white(ish) background for all controlled territory, and a yellow for uncontrolled. The India map is more complex, with diagonal lines to show disputes and with neighbouring countries and ocean shown, but the underlying colour scheme is the same. CMD (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Drawing comparisons between the colour schemes on maps built in different contexts is not particularly helpful. The map which you propose does not indicate that Aksai Chin is disputed by the Republic of India, at the same time shows how the PRC lays claim to Arunachal Pradesh (which is an India-administered territory) and Taiwan (administered by ROC). Your proposed basis for the map is not consistent with the practice of having political maps (and not maps highlighting "internal subdivisions") on the country articles. You might as well mark it as the PRC government version for all its worth. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a map that shows the administrative boundaries or provincial break up of a country need only show the area that is actually controlled by the country and the claimed territories marked in a separate color (as are the chinese map and the Indian map in the India infobox). If a map is included under 'foreign relations' or in a section that explicitly discusses a territory administered by one nation that is disputed by another, then the map should show that area as 'administered by but claimed by' in a third color (or other marking). I think the issue is more with the clickable map of India in the India article that highlights the Arunachal Pradesh dispute. Nothing wrong with that, but unnecessary. --regentspark (comment) 21:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

@Nearly Headless Nick: There is no widespread standard for presentation of subdivisions on country articles, and both maps here have the same context: the administrative divisions section. The map depicts China's divisions; thus it should show the areas administered, as well the areas which it includes in its divisions but which it doesn't actually control. Your suggestion that we should "mark it as the PRC government version" is completely ridiculous, and you know that. A Chinese opinion wouldn't have any grey whatsoever. CMD (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis The complication in the map of India you are talking about should be considered as legit imitation of WP:NPOV, the map clearly depicts what India administers and what not whether relating to China or to Pakistan, the same should be with the map of China.--kondi ^{talk/contribs} 23:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The China map clearly depicted what it administers and what it does not, with a similar colouring system to the India map. If you want to create a map presenting China's divisions in the context of the countries around it like the India one with diagonal lines, you may (although I'm not sure it's necessary, perhaps the India one is too complicated). However, with the map we currently have, without the context of surrounding countries, the basic controlled/claimed distinction is all the readers need. CMD (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Areas controlled by the PRC should be yellow. Areas claimed but not controlled by the PRC should be gray. Areas controlled by the PRC but claimed by others should not be marked on the map. Are we supposed to color everything yellow to gray because the Republic of China claims them all? But if we don't have we accurately reflected the entirety of overlapping territorial claims? The map should primarily reflect actual control and actual divisions. It is impossible to accurately and completely reflect more than that without making the map overly complicated like Image:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.svg, which belongs on a page dedicated to territorial disputes rather than the main country article.

If we have to depict claimed territories, then Kondicherry's version is better than Quigley's version, which does not distinguish between claimed but not controlled and controlled but claimed by others.--Jiang (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jiang. Incorporating all of PRC's claims would also mean including South China Sea in the map. Is this something we should also consider? I agree that Kondicherry's version is better because it accurately reflects the claims as they exist. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think incorporating the South China Sea islands in this particular map is quite practical, since at the scale of the image used on China, Provinces of the People's Republic of China and the like, the islands are too small to actually be visible. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not just the islands that are in dispute, but the extension of the entire continental shelf which China claims sovereignty over. We are not looking for practical solutions here, but accurate depictions. For instance, I would not propose including ROC claims over mainland China for the reason that it is not a country that has recognition with the UN. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This map doesn't show continental shelf, which I doubt is something administered on a provincial level anyway (although I could be wrong). Why shouldn't we consider the ROC claims if we consider their control? The UN has zero effect on either. CMD (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

For this image of Hainan Province, you'll need to squint your eyes in order to see the islands, which are not area-to-scale, but simply marked as equally-sized circular dots. Now think about how small these islands are when compared to the rest of the PRC.

The South China Sea claims are under legal jurisdiction of Hainan Province; they do not form their own provincial subdivision. This map is a depiction of provincial-level subdivisions of the PRC, both administrative and claimed. Sure, all official maps published by the PRC include a little square in the bottom including the South China Sea as well, but we are not making a map of China here. What we are doing is making a map of the political subdivisions. Plus, maps like these generally only involve landmasses; equivalent maps of Canada and the United States don't include deep-sea shelfs in their administrative division maps as well. If you really want to include the South China Sea islands somewhere, the most relevant place to do so would be File:People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg, which is an actual location map of China (being illustrated within the country infobox is its very purpose), however as I've mentioned earlier, the islands are too miniscule to be even seen. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there are some good points above and I've changed my thinking on this. Perhaps a political map should only reflect actual reality and not represent any 'claims' since claims are not reality. For example, if Pakistan chooses not to recognize the separation of Bangladesh, would we show the entire Bangladesh as a province of Pakistan, though in a different color? Since the Tibetan government in exile does not recognize China's claim on its Tibetan province, should we show that in a different color with a "claimed by Tibetan government in exile"? Every claim that we present here gains credibility and we shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing which claims have a greater validity than others. It would be better to eschew all mention of claims except in sections or articles on the dispute itself. --regentspark (comment) 16:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it depends on what the purpose of the political map is. This one is designed to show how the PRC divides itself. Their division will include Taiwan and South Tibet, and the explanation associated with the map will explain to readers why they may sometimes see Taiwan in a map of the PRC. I was under the impression the government recognised Chinese sovereignty but wishes for autonomy, but either way, it's a good point as to why we shouldn't show what territories other countries claim, as this has no affect on Chinese laws and control. CMD (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is that you just cannot choose to use a map representing "administrative divisions" when a political map which shows on-the-ground realities would be more appropriate. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And this map would show both. CMD (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you CMD. If readers found "Taiwan Provence" in the article but can not find it on the map as I said, "where is Taiwan then?" he may ask, it will be a very confused problem. Lavender Poison※Leaf 06:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a sockpuppet account User:Werran (who recently usurped this username) with less than 25 edits. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Initiate an SPI if you think it's a sock. CMD (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sockpuppet" - you keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means. Having had his/her first edit on 17 April 2006, this user has been on Wikipedia roughly the same length of time as you have. Wikipedia is a multilingual project, and making such an accusation is quite a bad-faith remark. See also global contribs, 1,536 edits on ZH Wiki. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, looking at his global contributions wasn't very obvious. They have limited contributions on the English Wikipedia and the Commons, and they were involved in disruptive reversions of established users without explanations or edit summaries edits. I do not need to file an SPI case to conclude that it is a single purpose account. I guess this part of the Wikiverse sees a lot of ridiculous lawyering. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So what? it doesnt make any sense. I can edit even if I am an IP user, Wikipeida is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit. I dont care you have more edits than me or you are the admin or something, what u did and ur reason is ridiculous. Lavender Poison※Leaf 14:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And pls do more homework before any personal attack, I am user:Werran and was user:Werran2, and you are not showing your user name too, so you are the sockpuppet account of user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington? Very funny. And what you are talking about, is it have any relevant about the map? I dont think I need to report to you if I gonna usurp an account or not(I registered in 2006/enwiki in 2008, not the same name), its none of your business. Lavender Poison※Leaf 14:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's move on now, there's no need to further dwelve into this particular issue. I'd prefer if we didn't end up with lots of heat on top of the original discussion at hand, which is the image issue. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

@chipmunkdavis. I see your point but this does need thinking through (perhaps at a wiki level) because this approach could lead to absurdities. For example, in the years following the communist takeover of China, when both China's claimed to be the 'real' China, we would have had to show the entire mainland China as a claimed province of Taiwan (or something like that). Then, there is also the issue of giving preference to nation states over the claims of other, extra-national, governments. Does the Tibetan government in exile have a lesser claim over Tibet than China over Taiwan or Arunachal Pradesh merely because it is a government-in-exile? Perhaps, but why should we be deciding which sorts of claims get preference over others? Better, I think, to stick to reality and ignore all claims that are not administratively backed up. Whether that claim be that of China over Taiwan or that of India over Pakistani Kashmir (or vice versa). Except, of course, in sections or articles that are primarily about the dispute. --regentspark (comment) 14:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

moved here from article, till the discussion is over. Lavender Poison※Leaf 14:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest asking wp:arbcom for resolution due to the conflict of interest of most participants in the current discussion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is an arbcom level issue. Rather, the community needs to decide what type of map is appropriate when we're depicting provinces of a country. Seems to me that there are three choices, each with its own pros and cons:

1. The "reality" map. Only actual land area that is under the control of the national entity should be shown.
2. The "claimed" map. Any land mass that is actually claimed by a country and included as a province or a part of a province should be shown, with the disputed area clearly demarcated. In the China case, this would include Arunachal Pradesh and Taiwan. In the India case, this would include Aksai Chin and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
3. The 'claimed and counter claimed' map. The claimed map along with any provinces or parts of provinces that are claimed by another entity (whether that entity be a nation state or some other organized group needs to be decided) but administered by the mapped entity also demarcated. In the China case, this would also include separately demarcating the Aksai Chin region (and possibly Tibet depending on whether we recognize non-national entities). In the India case, this would include the boundaries of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and the state of Arunachal Pradesh, the part that is claimed by China, marked as "administered by claimed by .....".

Seems to me this is best suited for an RfC. --regentspark (comment) 17:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with regentspark.--kondi ^{talk/contribs} 18:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

At one point, I agree improving the clarity of the Kashmir and Taiwan part in the map in order to include those areas. If this compromise is still not accepted by the major opponents here, this sadly leads me to believe your Indian background has affected your judgment. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to discuss nationality of the editors and attribute COI editing. I hope we are all pursuing a common objective – an accurate and neutral encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm against a RfC because it's making an elephant march out of mice. This is a small issue regarding one image that doesn't need third opinions, especially since the third opinion is likely to have little to no background knowledge of what's going on. I'd rather not have pretend experts who have read nothing on China apart from watching 10 minutes of a CNN report tell us what to do; the editors in this discussion are familiar with the China political issues; let the editors in this discussion deal with the problem at hand. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. They are images. They can be edited to be about anything and forked for any purpose. This is the China article and it includes the claims made by the PRC and how the PRC defines itself. The map in this article should show the claims whether it has control or not. If the map needs to be forked for the purposes of some other article, do it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

See the map of India, why don't you remove the part of Aksai Chin, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan from India? -Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You can see current version, Quingley version My version, my version was like the map mentioned above, the thing is Chipmunkdavis wanted to show what china claims and administers(not what india caims), so I reverted it to Quingley version. (I suggest this should be discussed in general as there is no prior policy or practice regarding territorial disputes see WikiProject Maps/Conventions). --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 07:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this really something people are getting angry and frustrated over? It seems to me as an interpretation thing, rather than a "this is wrong, this is right".

• The PRC actually controls mainland China, therefore it should be yellow.
• The PRC actually controls Hong Kong and Macau, therefore it should be yellow.
• The PRC actually controls Aksai Chin, therefore it should be yellow.
• The PRC claims Taiwan and Penghu, but has no effective control, therefore it should be grey.
• The PRC claims Kinmen and Matsu, but has no effective control, therefore it should be grey.
• The PRC claims South Tibet, but has no effective control, therefore it should be grey.
• We don't need green/blue/magnolia pink shades in the map distinguishing actual claims of disputed territories, because it is an administrative divisions map, and not a foreign relations map. It's just like picking flowers to brew tea or planning a war between two; we don't need a 5-shaded map detailing on claims because that is not the purpose of the map; a simple black-white difference with the two categories of "us" and "them", or between "edible flower" and "non-edible flower", is all that's required.

Is it really that difficult to find an agreement over interpretations of simple things? How else can the situation be interpreted, may I ask? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Map distinguishes areas only by colors is inaccessible for color blind readers. That's one of the reasons why stripy pattern is preferred over color. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? WP:ACCESSIBILITY does not dictate that it is an absolute rule to accommodate for the colour blind in maps and diagrams. File:People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg exists in its current state, as does File:DNA Structure+Key+Labelled.pn NoBB.png, File:DNA chemical structure.svg, File:Chosin-Battle.gif, File:Korean war 1950-1953.gif, et cetera. Plus, the thing that is most discouraged generally is using red and green, due to the most common colour-blindness being red-green non-distinction, and we are using neither colour. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Not everyone knows that China and India have territorial disputes, so the chances that they read the article on dispute are very low but if the image is on main article the chances of notice are comparatively high. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 10:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Be a bit more clearer, I don't understand what you're implying. What are you trying to explain by referring to how well people notice articles? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on second read through I can kind of guess what you're trying to say. Are you saying that we should add additional weight regarding the territorial disputes to the China article, so that people are "more likely to see" it? I frankly cannot agree with doing that. Not everybody knows about the territorial disputes between the United States and Canada either, yet we don't advertise it in big bold letters with flashy colours on the US map for everyone to see, just in case they weren't aware. In other words, it's undue weight. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Those disputes are about waters and islands, the disputes with India are of major portion of land. I'm not saying to advertise but at least the map should be according to current scenario and if the US map doesn't distinguish the disputes then I would like see the same thing in the US/Canadian map. And WP:UNDUE reads Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. These reliable sources 1 2 2 4 and more. When searched in google books and news archives these are the results: 1240 book results 1150 news results --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 10:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about the weight compared to the main topic. This is the China article, not the Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China article. There's more to China than politics, you know. Guess what I had for dinner today? I had Hokkien noodles with pork cutlets and assorted vegetables. Whilst I was cooking dinner, I certainly wasn't thinking about territorial disputes in Aksai Chin. Sure, we shouldn't ignore that these disputes exist, however there is a place for that, and the China article is not it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in China#Foreign relations ;) But Benlisqure is right, there's no need to advertise the dispute in areas it is tangential. That could be considered quite WP:pointy. Also quite pointy is making me hungry Benlisquare. Stop it! CMD (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

instead WP:NOTPOINTY--kondi ^{talk/contribs} 14:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you, but about pointless advertising of disputes, something I've encountered in numerous pointy fashions. I apologise for sounding like calling your pointy. CMD (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a mention of commons:Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view might be relevant here - "It is not the role of Commons to adjudicate on subject-matter disputes nor to force local projects to use one version of a file in preference to another... If you feel strongly that a map, emblem, flag or other file hosted here is “wrong” in some way, please try to persuade your local wiki community to make use of the version you prefer instead." I think that it's best for the file to be reverted to its original state prior to the recent controversy, in other words the status quo ante crearebellum, and if users are still intent on changing the map for usage on EN Wikipedia, then we can have further discussion, and a fork of the file be made that is separate from the existing file. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement you have quoted from Commons is something that I pretty much agree with. But I don't buy the status quo crearebellum argument - this is not a warzone, content is decided on the basis of consensus. This situation pretty much looks like a stalemate and we need to organize an RfC to get wider opinion. For now, we must either keep the map off the article, or include the first version of the image as it existed before CMD changed it a few months ago. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The map benlisquare included is not much different from the map by Chipmunkdavis, and the discussion is not resolved just the pace of the discussioon has slowed down. As for the solution of the discussion I agree with Sir Nick about the rfc. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 15:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

（　´_ゝ`） -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If the newer edition of the map does not satisfy, File:Political map of India EN.svg deserves removal from India article as well. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My version of china map and the map of India you mentioned above are no different as long as what they depict is concerned. So there is no issue of removing or keeping it in India article. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 08:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are. Both maps unambiguously depict areas that are claimed but de facto under control by foreign regimes. If India's map can be used in its article, the Chinese map shouldn't be challenged at all. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Kondi, please explain why we should maintain the Indian map in its current state, with its current borders, however be prohibited to use Sameboat's new version of the China map, which uses the exact same logic in dealing with disputed claims from other countries. It would be great if you could actually justify what you're trying to do, otherwise it simply appears to others as an example of butthurt, asspain and colon-crucifixion, being upset that you didn't get things "your way", even after compromises have already been made on the China map. It's a double standard to overlook the India map whilst screaming "murder, bloody murder" at the China map, no matter how you look at it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I want the China map to be just like the Indian map depicting everything unambiguously. You should compare my map and the Indian political map, as well as my version of China map and Chipmunkdavis' version of China map. And as long as map of India is concerned the map depicts everything unambiguously. Hope this helps.--kondi ^{talk/contribs} 10:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

China map my version

• Aksai chin - administered by China, claimed by India
• Arunachal Pradesh - administered by India claimed by China
• ROC - claimed by China

China map Chipmunkdavis' version

• Arunachal Pradesh is shown as claimed by China
• ROC is shown as claimed by China
• Aksai chin is shown as administered by china (IMHO Chipmunkdavis' version looks like unfinished work, there is no legend in the map and no text that depicts the disputed territories)

map of India

• POK - claimed by India administered by Pakistan
• Aksai chin - claimed by India administered by China
• Arunachal Pradesh - claimed by China administered by India
• Siachin glacier - undefined territory

I am neutral about the Kashmir areas. But before you guys have reached any consensus, reverting to the version that omits Taiwan Island and South Tibet is simply disruptive, the claims of these areas are verifiable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the map is to depict things realistically. You can't just have Indian claims shaded in the China map - why only India? What's so special about India, so that only Indian claims are shaded in the China map? Why not any other sovereign states? Then we get to the problem of shading all claimed territories - once we reach this point, then you may as well shade all of China, since the mainland is claimed by the Republic of China currently located on the island of Taiwan and surrounds; a map shading like that is completely non-practical. Then, the map completely loses its original purpose of being an administrative divisions map, and essentially becomes another foreign relations/territorial disputes map (and we have over 5000 of those maps on Wikimedia Commons already, we don't need another one). This map is for showing the provinces and autonomous regions of China - nothing more, nothing less. Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is a de jure province, de facto aside, and thus having a map of China without Taiwan Province is quite incomplete. This map is about China, and how China runs things in its administration and legal circles, and not about international circlejerks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

>IMHO Chipmunkdavis' version looks like unfinished work, there is no legend in the map and no text that depicts the disputed territories
You know it isn't entirely rocket science to figure out what yellow and grey means on a map, especially since it's explained in detail within the prose. On the other hand, when you use twelve different colours, you need to use a colour key, and as you can see right above with your India map, colour keys embedded within maps are not even legible by the human eye when made into a thumbnail. Right now, my screen resolution is 1366x768. What if some grandpa comes along with his 15-year old Pentium III running Windows 98 with a screen resolution of 640x480? If we had your image on the China article right now, he wouldn't even be able to read the colour key, not even taking into account of his myopia. In my opinion, per WP:ACCESSIBILITY, colour keys are not practical for our situation at all. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The colors can be changed and the discussion is not about the colors! And about Taiwan I'd like to say that it is not a United Nations member.--kondi ^{talk/contribs} 14:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

...and? The Republic of China (Taiwan) is the 19th largest economy and has the 9th largest armed forces total size. You can't just assume it doesn't exist because it isn't a UN member. The People's Republic of China wasn't a UN member until the 1970s either. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) I'm not sure what the resolution is above but I think we should generally restrict ourselves to reality. Taiwan is a separate sovereign nation and popping a "Claimed, administered by the Republic of China" on it is not something we should be doing. For one thing, "administered" is not the right word by any stretch of imagination. Same for Arunachal Pradesh. Or for "Azad Kashmir". Or "Aksai Chin". Borders are notoriously rife with claims and counter claims and we can't go around deciding which claims we chose to feature and which ones we don't. --regentspark (comment) 12:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Benlisq's point, which I agree, is that specific map should be used for relevant topic. The sole purpose of this map is to show the internal administrative divisions of PRC, so it is OK to omit areas claimed by foreign regimes (including ROC). For territorial disputes of PRC, it's fine to use Kondi's map in Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China#International territorial disputes IMHO. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all accept the government is not a neutral source and the map should be understood as the POV of the administration. Whatever other countries claimed are not related to the internal boundary drawing process and should not be presented as the POV of the government. --Skyfiler (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this has been stated above before and I reiterate: the problem with drawing maps as per "internal divisions" of the PRC is that such internal divisions contain foreign territories administered (for the lack of better word) by other countries and hence not acceptable as a map reflecting reality. In the current version, the use of the terms "South Tibet" and "Taiwan province" is something that I object to, because these are simply terms used by the PRC administration – the terms in wide use are "Arunachal Pradesh" and "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" internationally. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about the majority option on the government's division method. If you want to claim border dispute is relevant to provisional boundaries, cite some sources to back you up. Adding territory dispute remarks to maps of internal divisions is not a practice you can find even in a minority of reliable sources, and should not be presented as the majority option. If you want to put it on Wikpedia, change the file name and description so that if you do an image search on the file description you can actually find such a map in the top 10 pages. --Skyfiler (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"the terms in wide use are "Arunachal Pradesh"" - but that's wrong; the PRC does not claim all of Arunachal Pradesh, only a portion of it. Equating the two would be like saying Methylated spirits is another name for ethanol (it's not; it's ~98% ethanol, plus flavouring designed to make you vomit so you don't drink it at parties). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That piece of land is a major portion of Arunachal Pradesh. I am not equating the terms but objecting to the use of "South Tibet" term in the map, which is just a controversial term and nothing else. In such a scenario, indicating that the claimed land is a part of Arunachal Pradesh, India is more relevant than using a controversial term. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid "stating reality or fact" in Wikipedia. We just state what is sourced. The map is intended to reflect PRC's definition on the lands in its own article. And you seriously impress me for giving India the privilege to use the specific term, especially in the scope of Wikipedia. If there's any policy/guideline supporting your argument, point me one. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are quoting me above or ascribing intentions which are invisible to me in my commentary above. All assertions made in the articles are to be supported by reliable sources. Where are you sourcing the "South Tibet" bit from? The name of the state of "Arunachal Pradesh" is a widely used term in the mainstream media, while "South Tibet" simply exists as a controversial term used by fringe academicians in PRC. Please quit making straw man arguments by ascribing false opinions to your opponents in a content dispute. Meanwhile, point out a policy or content guideline on the project that supports use of controversial terms and neologisms in political maps. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversial or not, the term "South Tibet" is to specifically indicate the portion (rather than the whole Arunachal Pradesh) claimed by PRC, its usage is sourced not only from Chinese sources. Marking that particular area "Arunachal Pradesh" constitutes WP:SYNTH regardless of how much portion of Arunachal Pradesh included in the claim. (Your synthesis: Because PRC's claimed territory is within Indian Arunachal Pradesh, that specific portion is called Arunachal Pradesh.) This is why we have separate articles for South Tibet/South Tibet dispute and Arunachal Pradesh, they're 2 different concepts. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the proper term in your case is "Zàngnán" ("South Tibet" being a literal translation). Secondly, the area claimed is a part of the territory administered by Arunachal Pradesh (which is a province of India) or any part thereof. As you can also see, the "South Tibet" page is a disambiguation page which provides multiple definitions of what it means. Therefore, the mainstream use of South Tibet does not necessarily include any part of Arunachal Pradesh. How does the use of the phrase "Administered by Arunachal Pradesh, India" fail WP:SYNTH? I think you should spend some time actually reading the the policies you quote. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"mainstream use" - we're not worried about mainstream use, we're using PRC administrative terms on a PRC administrative map. The PRC uses the terms Taiwan Province and South Tibet. South Tibet is not Arunachal Pradesh in the same reasoning that metho isn't ethanol, and GNU/Linux is not UNIX. Now, I'm fine with removing "South Tibet" from the map (after all, "South Tibet" is not a provincial-level subdivision), leaving only a grey shaded area marked as "Claimed to be part of Xizang, Governed by India", however I am opposed to using Arunachal Pradesh on this map. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

China never claims "Arunachal Pradesh", this is where your synth begins. However, if Benlisquare agrees to remove "South Tibet" from the map I concur. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary of discussions

Clearly, the discussion has veered off from where it started. Now there are more issues with the map than before. When Kondicherry proposed this version of the map which details the status of the current territories, it was summarily rejected by a few editors on this page. Now, they have included their own marked version which includes use of controversial terms such as "South Tibet" and a clickthrough link to the "Taiwan province" article. I think this is against ENWP's policies on neutrality and use of reliable sources. Therefore, we must invoke the dispute resolution process through the initiation of an RfC. I am happy to start the process in two or three days but in the meanwhile, I ask that (i) the map being used on the article be removed until the dispute is resolved and (ii) the editors in dispute provide summaries of their arguments presented above which can be used as a starting point for the RfC. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware, the clickable link to Taiwan Province, PRC has existed since the file existed, and since the template existed. No one's been "recently adding controversial links" to anything. In fact, when the grey-colour Taiwan was removed from the image, that made it all the more messy, since there was a chunk of empty white space that linked to Taiwan Province, PRC. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a dispute about a map of China showing the administrative divisions of China as claimed by China? Has this reasoning ever been followed on any other country article, ever? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The chief issue here seems to be that you are giving prominence to a biased PRC government POV "administrative map" as an excuse to keep the NPOV political map of PRC/China out of the article. Please stick to the topic and summarize your arguments or I will do so myself and launch an RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe an RfC is not necessary for the dispute in question. An RfC for something of this magnitude suggests all sorts of euphemisms, and I interpret it as merely a tactic to overturn a failed attempt at an action, a last minute strategem if you will. An RfC would bring in pretend-experts in China topics, people with zero knowledge in the field at all, and people who are statistically selected as part of a volunteer bias. The outcome is by no means definitely constructive. In China we have a saying for what I believe is being attempted: 借刀殺人 "kill with a borrowed knife". Our side has already been willing to make compromises, one after the other; if our actions are not reciprocated, we cannot help but assume, in bad faith, that the ones insisting on change are trying to force it by all means. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Benlinsquare would you summarize what compromises were/are you willing to make? If the PRC claim isn't over whole Arunachal Pradesh then why does the map (the one which was unanimously agreed not to be featured on the article) currently in the article suggests whole Arunachal Pradesh as claimed instead of just "south tibet"? --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 08:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Kondi, the text "South Tibet" was removed from the map because Nick complained that term to be too controversial to your Indian's taste. The greyed areas are included for the sake of completeness and practicality (unambiguous) because they're verifiable, not because we want to push PRC's claim. WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE stated that images used in the article "should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." Also whether the particular material violates POV or not should be judged upon if it's misleading to the reader. As for the map that does not include dispute area claimed by foreign regime, it certainly does not. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

>Benlinsquare would you summarize what compromises were/are you willing to make?
We added the name of your glorious country to the map. We made it more clear what the grey colour meant (without having to resort to a colour key in the corner which is a WP:ACCESSIBILITY nightmare). We then removed the term "South Tibet", to suit your highness. Any more than that, and it would be beyond reasonable.
>If the PRC claim isn't over whole Arunachal Pradesh blah blah blah blah...
If you actually bothered to read the South Tibet dispute article, China does not claim, and has never ever claimed, any of the territory South of the McMahon Line. South of this line, and there are still many many towns and villages of the state of Arunachal Pradesh. If you demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with the subject like you just have, how can I trust you, of all people, to make decisions on what to do here on the PRC article? Plus, an RfC would bring in even more of these "so-called experts" on Sino-Indian relations, people that can't even distinguish an Indian state from a Chinese geographic region on a map. Changlang district is a part of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and never was, never is, and never will be claimed by China. It never was, never is, and never will be claimed as part of South Tibet, and it was, is, and always will be recognised by China as part of Arunachal Pradesh, state of the Republic of India. The same applies for Tirap district and many other parts of Arunachal Pradesh that were never ever claimed by China. I mean, just look at this map, look at where the dotted line is located, is it really such a difficult concept to understand, that China does not claim Arunachal Pradesh? I'm spoonfeeding all of you like crazy, and some of you still don't get it. South Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh are not the same thing, just like how all seawater is salt water, but not all salt water is seawater (there's saline solution and brine too). Rather than blindly following political rhetoric, I'd recommend that people actually do a little bit of research on what they're talking about. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

PRC surely has listened, is listening and will listen to Benlinsquare I think. The so called expert sorry, "so called expert" you are referring to has read the article. I should apologize for that comment mistakenly made in haste. But RFC in the end will provide us with a more open point of view. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 11:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, only arguments backed by rationale and references are acceptable not "experts". I cannot see that a discussion that is going nowhere at present is best served by NOT going to a wider audience. I support the idea of an Rfc for broader eyeballs and consensus instead of a cosy club. If you feel that some prior reading is required, please add a list of Wikipedia articles recommended to be read before joining in the debate. AshLin (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue was hardly contentious other than one or two people rocking the boat, both on the enwiki and commons talkpages. That is, until, a big deal was made out of this tiny bit of trouble. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is rather unreasonable, Benlinsquare. There was no intention of "rocking the boat" as you put it. It is quite evident that both Kondicherry and I have discussed changes rather than edit war unlike a couple of other editors (including an SPA) without making a reference your nationality or ethnicity like Sameboat did a few posts above. Everyone is asked to please discuss the content issues rather than the users. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to you numerous times on the Commons talkpages, it's quite unreasonable to call zhwiki regulars SPAs. If for some reason you decide to trek down to zhwiki, you can expect not to be branded as an SPA, so it would be expected of you to do the same on both Commons and enwiki. Is unified login something that you are unaware of? Remember, things on Commons affects more than just enwiki, and the original file has had to be removed from numerous Wikimedia projects due to the removal of Taiwan from the map. Those who are at fault are the ones reverting the file to the no Taiwan version and edit warring on Commons, as opposed to creating a file fork as Commons policy dictates. I can argue that, regardless of what you believe is right for enwiki, such actions are a violation of Commons rules. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't give me lessons on enwp and Commons policies. Your persistent efforts at sidelining the core of discussions into a petty bickering match are particularly unhelpful. I have offered you a chance to summarize your arguments briefly, please do so, or I will initiate an RfC myself. This is my last offer at allowing you to summarize your contentions in the interest of fairness. The stalemate has gone on for far too long and I do not have more patience to tolerate your bad faith accusations. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"bad faith accusations" - Do you really think you can get people to co-operate with you like that? It's pot calling the kettle black, plain and simple. You have been asked time and time again to prove that editors are either "sockpuppets" or "SPA"s. You're throwing these terms around without justification. I'm not going to specifically imply that you're using these terms to put others at a bad light, but I don't think you have the right to criticise me for being cynical, because I know ignorance when I see it. As for that summary you're after, I'll leave that to Sameboat or one of the others. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please forgive me if my attempts at resolving the dispute through an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism (aka RfC) seem "ignorant". Your personal dislike of the "Request for Comments" (RfC) mechanism make it apparent that you either do not have much of an idea about WP:CONSENSUS or you are deliberately avoiding content-related questions to obfuscate the discussions by writing screeds of meaningless accusations. Regardless of Werran's contributions to zhwiki, his contributions to enwp are limited to the dispute over the use of maps on the China article here and that is why they are an SPA (see also WP:QUACK). Please do not make personal comments about other users ("I know ignorance when I see it"). Such behaviour is inappropriate and unacceptable on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty Anglocentric remark there. Commons serves all Wikipedia projects, not only the English Wikipedia. You're talking as if enwiki runs this entire joint. Clearly you have no understanding of WP:QUACK when it's been proven to you that the user is active on the Chinese Wikipedia. I have less then three edits on the English Wikiversity - does that make me an SPA, if I wish to report a copyvio, for example? A sock implies that the user has more than one account, and intends on using them disruptively. Have you proven this? As a sysop, shouldn't you be a bit more familiar with policy and whatnot? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

See, the issue here is that the individual who has accused others of ignorance has not bothered to read either WP:SPA or WP:SOCK. Not all SPAs are SOCKs, and not all SOCKs are SPAs. An SPA may or may not be disruptive. But you can't use both of them interchangeably. When Werran was making changes on Commons and enwp earlier, I was not aware that they were a Wikimedia regular. For the English Wikipedia, however, their contributions have only been limited to this dispute and hence an SPA is not a contentious description of their account. Whether they are being disruptive or not is another issue altogether. Being an SPA may not disqualify their commentary, but it just highlights how their contributions to the current project are simply limited to engaging in this dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Even an IP user/anon can comment on any dispute if his argument is reasonable and strong. But your stands on South Tibet (which does not only or completely cover the area of Arunachal Pradesh) clearly shows your pro-Indian stands during this discussion. I don't exactly know what else summary you want, but some of my arguments were ignored by you and Kondi. 1) WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE justifies specific image used for relevant content in the article even if the said image is not wholly accurate to all the details/fact. 2) If you really want to remove the greyed areas from the map, you should convince us mentioning disputed areas in the prose/table is not neutral as well. WP:NPOV is only addressed when specific and individual issue is presented one-side and misleading. Claimed foreign territory and claimed territory by foreign regimes are 2 different issues, they does not make each other more neutral, thus omitting either one or both does not make the map more neutral or less. But removing greyed areas from the map does damage its relevance with China#Administrative divisions section. 3) It is only against NPOV if we write that "PRC is the rightful owner of this land." in the map. The current sentence "claimed. Governed by the Republic of XXX" should be fairly unambiguous and would not cause any confusion to the reader, not to mention their verifiability. 4) We already have File:China administrative.png in the China#Territorial disputes section to depict most (if not all) disputed areas claimed by foreign regimes. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. IPs must be ignored.190.51.135.113 (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Double standards

And finally, speaking on behalf of zh:User:玖巧仔 who has kindly asked me to transfer this message, here's a warm present from the Chinese Wikipedia community:

• 
• File:Devapala.svg
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

How about fixing up these maps first before imposing your double standards on others? These images are all problematic. You yell murder when a China administrative map marks claimed territories in grey, but turn a blind eye to images that claim all of Kashmir and Aksai Chin as de facto Indian territory, in both present-day maps and historical maps. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Great efforrt you've put there in collecting all these maps, but you should've also considered seeing the file usage on wikipedia, not a single image from above has been used on English Wikipedia, and as I and Nick are mostly active on English Wikipedia the possibility of encountering these images is trivial. And even commons:File:China administrative.svg image came to our knowledge after seeing it on China only. And you're ignoring what Nick said, summarize what changes you're willing to make otherwise he'll initiate an rfc soon. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 18:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read Ben's reply at 6:31 pm, 30 March 2012. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is "screaming murder", Benlinsquare. Please calm down. I am not sure what you mean by the "gift from Chinese Wikipedia community". I hope this is not an Us vs. Them issue for you? I have never made any reference to your ethnicity or nationality before, but you and Sameboat have made this personal by continuously referring to India as "your glorious country" and Kondicherry and I as "Indians". I have to remind you yet again, keep your comments about the content rather than talk about other users' nationalities and ethnicities. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger. Once someone actually bothers to explain these images, I'll relay the message back to the user in question. That's all I am going to do. People on other projects are asking questions, wondering why Taiwan is disappearing from maps, and they want answers. They are wondering why an enwiki content dispute is affecting a file on Commons, which serves more than just enwiki. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional information: The user zh:User:玖巧仔 that Belinsquare has quoted above has an interesting profile with many userboxes: (i) This user supports Han chauvinism (ii) this user supports the One China principle (iii) Sikkim Kingdom is a sovereign state (iv) this user is opposed to Taiwan independence. Should we take their views without a pinch of salt? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA. I could be a fascist anti-Semite, holocaust denying white supremacist homophobe rapist with leprosy, but if I make a statement which is logically correct, you cannot debunk it by simply making an ad hominem. You've accused others of breaching WP:NPA whilst ignoring it yourself, further causing me to question your ability to handle the current situation properly and effectively. Also, of the 1.3 billion people in mainland China, who the flying firetruck doesn't support the One-China policy? You may as well say that Americans can't eat McDonald's. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a lack of logical integrity in the presentation above. The maps exist on Commons, yeah, so what? Are they currently in use on any of the articles? Commons is a media repository which houses millions of other images which may or may not be accurate or NPOV. Fascist anti-Semites tend to get banned on the English Wikipedia, and also those who think their race is superior to that of others. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So you say. Why didn't you fork your dispute-free map but overwriting the existing file when it doesn't violate any Commons policy/guideline? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's aim for the top, guys. And that goes for everyone, on all sides.

Arguing with you over things like these is like the idiom 對牛彈琴 playing the zither to a cow, it's no use since you're already determined on your stance and no amount of talk can get you willing to listen. As I've mentioned earlier, the administrative SVG map was removed from many projects because it became problematic. You seem quite learnéd in the English language, so I'm not going to question your comprehension, but rather your tendency to ignore what other people are writing. "Fascist anti-Semites tend to get banned on the English Wikipedia" - not without good reason. If the fascist anti-semite made disruptive edits due to his status as a fascist anti-semite, then that is grounds for a block; being a fascist anti-semite is not a crime in its own, and if a fascist anti-semite says that 2+2 makes 4, you cannot say "2+2 is actually 5, don't listen to this guy he's a fascist anti-semite". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What needs fixing? Unless those map's description or usage do not match the drawing like the Chinese administrative map, I don't see a need to fix.

Whether some kind of information belong to a map or not is a subject matter and is subject to NPOV policies. We have maps that have earth as the center of the universe without any disputes on reality. We are ignoring reality because the majority of reliable sources do not think remarks like "Note: earth is not the center of the universe" belong to a geocentric map.

Now do an image research on the topic "china administrative map". you will see although those map have vary levels of details (mountains, rivers, provincial capitals etc) there is almost no map (at least I can't find in the research but I add "almost" just to be safe) have "claimed by China, administrated by X" remarks. If you look at reliable sources like UN and Stanford you will always see the border drawn by PRC. Apparently those publishers think border dispute is irrelevant when the topic is the administrative map of China. On the other hand, mountains, rivers and provincial capital probably should be added. Of course, such kind of information reduce a map's relevance on other pages, and the map should be forked to include a different set of information if necessary.--Skyfiler (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, please read the discussions above before commenting. The Chinese "administrative map" argument is a red herring. The prominence given to the PRC government map on this article is improper, given that illustrative maps of all countries on Wikipedia articles are political maps reflecting on-the-ground realities not one-sided point of view. I suggest you continue this discussion in one of the sections above. Either that, or help summarize your position in brief to help with the initiation of the RfC. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The prominence given to the PRC government map is the choice made by an overwhelming number of reliable sources on the subject. This is the reality. What you are doing is to change the subject to add a "currently controlled" modification before discussing what needs to be on the map. This is not an justifiable argument given the amount of sources doing otherwise. The file's description is not "administrative map with currently controlled region remarks that a Wikipedia user think it is important enough to be on the map". Your POV of what needs to be in an "administrative map" is different than what reliable sources include in their maps when the topic is "administrative map", and have no place to be represented as the majority view on the matter.--Skyfiler (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) This clearly needs an RfC. The question is straightforward "should areas claimed by Country A but that are actually a part of Country B be included in a political map of Country A"? I see that this discussion is getting lost in bad faith assumptions so I suggest moving this to a broader venue. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Importance of map details are subjective to the map's topic (the file in discussion is administrative map not political map, BTW) and should be sourced and challenged if undue weight is given. --Skyfiler (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any policy/guideline prohibiting such depiction on the image when no one is challenging their neutrality in the prose or table? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the purpose of an RfC is to get community consensus on issues that cannot be resolved simply by looking for a guideline or a policy and am unable to understand why there is resistance to that idea. Seems a fair enough way of figuring things out. My suggestion is that all of you work in good faith to craft a set of questions for the RfC and then let the chips fall where they will. --regentspark (comment) 13:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to an RfC just for this particular image, or do you mean an RfC for territorial disputes in　general, Wikipedia-wide? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be a more general RfC. The issue with the map in question is that it shows Taiwan and parts of India within the administrative boundaries of China. I assume that similar issues arise elsewhere (maps of India that include parts of Pakistan and China within its administrative boundaries, maps of Pakistan with similar issues, the situation with Nagorno-Karabakh, etc.). An RfC would clarify what the pros and cons of both inclusion as well as exclusion are, and would help provide a guideline for resolving future such disputes. --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is an RfC for the general issue, allowing for uniformity within all country articles, then I wouldn't mind that. I however am opposed to an RfC being started on only addressing the issue of China alone, as it helps no one, and solves nothing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am open to a general RfC as well. However, that will require more research and time to point out specific instances for community discussion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a very bad assumption that the reader would actually be confused by the map. It is only problematic and against NPOV if the map merely writes that "PRC is the rightful owner to this piece of land". The current sentence "Claimed. Governed by the Republic of XXX" has already eliminated that confusion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the relevance of "Claimed. Governed by the Republic of XXX" to "administrative map" need support from enough reliable sources in the first place, otherwise the remark is pushing a tiny minority POV wherever the map is used. Unless someone want new rfc overriding the NPOV policy on this particular matter I don't see the need for new rfc. --Skyfiler (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Political dispute is not science that can be proven right or wrong scientifically. That's why I'm totally against using "pushing POV" to justify any removal of territorial disputes when it is merely stating what reliable source says. WP:NPOVFAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete stated that the policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are overwhelmingly against such kind of addition. What kind of reliable sources are you looking at? Are you limiting your search to those relevant to border dispute? Those cannot be used to prove the theory that border dispute is common among administrative maps as they are limited in scope to begin with. You can't look at a bunch of NBA players and say very tall people are common among human or deduct any kind of conclusion about human kind from reliable sources on NBA players. You are citing policy that is against you, BTW, when US universities and UN are using the Chinese government's map data without adding birder dispute remarks. Those are properly sourced bias you are talking about. Please do not include any editorial bias that want to change the reality that educational institutions and UN do not think border disputes belong to administrative maps. --Skyfiler (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm citing the textual source to back the disputed territory in the map[3]. How could this be editorial bias? I must stress that your theory "border dispute is uncommon" is original research. Can you give me a reliable source that straightly says "border dispute is uncommon"? This is not something we can say ourselves. If reliable sources report the dispute exists, they're there no matter what. If only "image" like UN that does not depict border disputes can be used as "reliable source" to depict our map, probably no map on Wikipedia could include any disputed territory, including the Indian subdivision map itself. It does not make sense at all. You can give flat earth theory, the theory proven wrong, some good weight when you're writing the article flat earth, so I don't think we're giving undue weight to depict PRC's claimed lands in the China article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To my surprise, the map in UN website does indicate disputed borders [4]. Another map linked from UN site[5] depicts Taiwan in the same color as Mainland China (interestingly, South Tibet is separated from India like an independent state) [6]. I admit the ReliefWeb map is not directly downloaded under UN domain name, but being linked from UN official site does give it credibility. Thank you Skyfiler, now the border dispute is hardly "minority view". This discussion should be closed! -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To my surprise, you cite an image mainly covers India as an example of "administrative map of China"[7]. A student would get F for that logic. The map does not claim to be an administrative map of China. It is titled "south Asia", claim it to be a map of something else to advance a point is original research. I am not saying border dispute is minority POV for a border dispute map, by the way, but we are not discussing a border dispute map. If you want to put a border dispute map on Wikipedia, that's fine, just don't pretend birder dispute is relevant on every kind of map of China. Is searching on UN.org or .edu domain for administrative map and China that hard? --Skyfiler (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You're making a brand new policy that prohibits border dispute to be included in administrative map. Please discuss this somewhere else so the Indian or Georgia (which has lost its control over the South Ossetia region) subdivision map would get the same treatment after specific policy is established. Thank you. But I would certainly oppose to such idea. It is a common practice that nations with claimed uncontrolled territory to regard it as part of their administrative division. It is a national issue that not for us Wikipedians to judge if such POV major or minor. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is your idea that NPOV should be ignored and we make up some new rules to replace NPOV, not mine, like what you mentioned " no map on Wikipedia should include border disputes if reliable sources of administrative maps of China do not mention border disputes". I merely said a map needs to reflect what reliable sources said on the topic. If near all high-quality reliable sources agree on each other (such as directly use the map data published by PRC), rare minority source should be omitted per WP:DUE. If even a minority of reliable sources publish administrative maps of China with border disputes remarks like "claimed by China", then it deserves a place, just like nobody dispute the mentioning of spherical Earth IN THE LEAD of flat earth given the cited sources do regularly mention spherical Earth. But what you are doing is trying to prove importance of border dispute to administrative map of China by a collections of synthesis of published materials that do not even cover administrative map of China. It is easy to see how ridiculous this is by implying the opposite using the same material with the same flawed logic:(original research starts) since even articles related to border disputes do not support the idea that border disputes are important enough for an administrative maps of China themselves, administrative maps of China should not include border disputes(original research ends). That's why the policy no original research prohibits implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. --Skyfiler (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No. You missed the point that PRC's official administrative map[8] makes no mention of uncontrolled lands being disputed when including them. But this is the government issued map used by its 1.3 billion citizens and PRC's laws strictly rule how its border should be interpreted[9]. Is this map biased? Yes. Does that prevent us from citing it? Absolutely no. You can't just pretend the PRC's version has never ever existed because you personally think it contradicts with the "majority". This is your kind of editorial bias, trying to use the majority sources to make the official version seemingly deniable, this is actually against NPOV. That policy requires us to present the information with conflicting POVs neutrally, not omitting a strong source that counteracts the so-called majority. It is the administrative map of PRC, and this is the article about PRC (albeit renamed to simply "China"), there's no reason to justify the omission of PRC's official sources. I don't mean PRC's administrative map should be our sole source of citation, but PRC's version should be given some due weight in its own article. Frankly PRC (actually every country claiming foreign land) doesn't consider her own claimed territories "disputed" ever. Stating the de facto status of the differences between PRC's and other source's maps is the most neutral thing we can do. If you think this is making original research, then we would change the wording for those greyed areas to be "area included in the PRC official map" without mentioning anything about territorial dispute. This solution is not ruled out by WP:SYNTH because we're merely making factual comparison between 2 sets of statistic, rather than text. This is a common practice in Wikipedia by using expression parser function to calculate the age or convert another unit that isn't used in the source. The other option is, to overlay 2 or more images and make a switch for toggling the visibility of 1 layer, that way we can present 2 maps fairly without using the current map that isn't recognized by either source. It is technically possible and I know how to make it. Now's the time you provide your version of source for the administrative map. My only stance is, PRC's version of administrative map can't be omitted whatsoever. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you read my previous posts, I said in my research the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do not have border dispute remarks. I don't know why you said I am omitting PRC's POV in proposing the removal border dispute remarks. As you said PRC is against adding border dispute remarks to administrative map of China too. You are the one against the removal of territorial disputes and reflect other countries' claims on the map. --Skyfiler (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess you've not fully read my reply. See my experiment with overlapping: User:Sameboat/x7‎. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I already read your reply. You are still proposing a layer based on your idea that an administrative map is a de facto map. I could not find a single reliable resource suggesting so. The resources I found overwhelmingly agree the meaning of "administrative map of china" on PRC's POV, they cite the GIS data provided by PRC directly. If you want to add claims by other countries, upload to another file name to reflect the change, such as ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.svg on commons. But using the new file in an article that does not mention claims made by other countries is still POV pushing.--Skyfiler (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Then we may simply use File:China administrative PRC.svg. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. that one should be used in place of the current one's context as the section is for provincial matters. The map with territory disputes fits in the territory disputes section.--Skyfiler (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

RegentsPark, it seems to me you want to create new policy/guideline that satisfy your desire to remove disputed area from country/nation/political map (whatever you call it). That sole purpose should not be targeting on Chinese map. You guys overwrote and removed the map without backed by any policy/guideline but simply you don't like it that I seriously consider that disruptive. I've already stated my summary in the previous section, please don't ignore it. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A rfc in general has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#RfC: Guideline on depiction of disputed lands/territories. This discussion in general should continue there. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 15:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You threatened to start the RfC if we didn't make a summary. You wanted a summary and I gave you. Now you ignored it and started the RfC anyway. Nice job. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2012

China is not the second largest country by land area as misstated in the first paragraph but the third after Russia and Canada.

Aznimmortal (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done List of countries and outlying territories by land area lists China at 9,612,945 square km of land area, while Canada has 9,093,507 square km of land area. Canada is second in the list when its very high territorial water area is added. The lede of this article refers to the land area, not the total area. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Cfd Discussion of interest to talk page participants

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_13#Category:Populated_places_in_the_People.27s_Republic_of_China is probably of interest to those that participated in the move discussions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Adding comment with timestamp so that the bot actually archives this section. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Add traditional characters

Since this article is on China now rather than just the PRC since 1949, as it was before the article was moved, you should include both chinese characters (正體字 / proper characters) and "simplified" characters, rather than just the simplified ones. This is the general practice for English wikipedia articles where Chinese words are given. Also, given that Hong Kong and Macau are now officially parts of the PRC, just as much as the 22 other provinces, that means proper chinese characters need to be included alongside simplified ones, as clearly some areas of the PRC are using traditional and some areas simplified. On both counts, both the subject of the article (China, including pre-PRC history), as well as the fact that administritive divisions under PRC jurisdiction use both forms (HK, Macau, and as they would claim, Taiwan, vs the other 22 provinces), the justification for using simplified only is obviously flawed. Saruman-the-white (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking through the article it is mainly the country name, province names, and the SAR names that have Chinese characters. I would think that "China" should include both sets, "Hong Kong" should be both sets (traditional used internally, simplified used by the central government), but other provinces only need to have the simplified character set. Readin (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the historical argument convincing: Turkey does not have the Ottoman Turkish alphabet in the lead; neither Japan nor Russia feature their pre-reform orthography. The returns of Hong Kong and Macau did not give traditional script coequal status in the PRC. Traditional Chinese characters are deprecated by law in the PRC. We already a similar issue when some people wanted to include Zhonghua in addition to Zhongguo in the lead. Our aim is to include only the most essential information in the first sentence. The infobox contains both simplified and traditional versions, as well as more romanizations than you want to know. Shrigley (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Traditional characters are used by the 31 million people in HK SAR, Macau SAR, and the PRC's claimed Taiwan Province. Simplified characters are used by a majority of the 1300 million in the other 22 provinces/administrative divisions with the exception of older generations and many from the younger educated generations in wealthy coastal cities. Although undoubtedly more are using simplified, and simplified is official in more admin divisions, traditional is official in HK, Macau, and TW, and as such, no matter that simplfied is more widely used, both constitute official scripts of their jurisdictions and as such both should be in use. Saruman-the-white (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Given Taiwan only uses traditional Chinese in its lead and this is the English language encyclopaedia I think only including simplified in the lead here seems like the right approach. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't exclude traditional anyway, since the {{Chinese}} template includes simplified, traditional and a handful of romanizations from varying spoken dialects. If I remember correctly, a handful of editors made the argument that there is no need to have everything (English, IPA, simplified, traditional, pinyin, abbreviations) in the lede as it can get quite cluttery (I believe User:Ohconfucius called it "language spaghetti" or something), and since it could be effectively included elsewhere within the article (i.e. the language box template), only the basics are required in the lede. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've gone and removed the traditional characters from the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Side of the road

Why is the side of the road China drives in listed in the overview? There are so many more important things that could be listed. Cking1130 (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a standard field of {{infobox country}}. Infoboxes are generally used to convey such quasi-trivia and tabular data/statistics. If you want to change it, you'd be advised to bring it up on the template's talkpage. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of China is from Qin dynasty?

Qin, pronounced as Tsin in Chinese, so in English it should have been written and pronounced as Chin, then why would English pronunciation be Tʃai nə? Wilson20072000 (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What is known is that "China" is derived from Medieval Persian Cin. This in turn is derived from Cīna, a Sanskrit (ancient Indian) word. The traditional theory is that the Sanskrit word is derived from "Qin". This theory is still commonly found in reference works. However, the word appears in Hindu scripture that pre-dates the Qin Dynasty. Kauffner (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I see I didn't really answer the question. The spelling "China" is from Barbosa's journal, which has a chapter entitled, "El Grande Reino da China".[10] Eden translated this journal and kept the spelling. ("The great China whose kyng is thought the greatest prince in the world.") Kauffner (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Mention of human rights in lede

Why does the lead not discuss the standard of human rights in the People's Republic of China.[11]? And also the illegal occupation of Tibet (according to the Tibetans[12])? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Or the absence of a free opposition and democracy[13] or a free press[14], or the censorship of the internet - the most stringent in the world[15]? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Such as the North Korea or the Burma articles do. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

International media coverage of Burma focuses far more on the democracy situation, though I doubt the same applies to coverage of the DPRK. Within the past few months, I can definitely say that int'l reports on the PRC mostly have been on economic issues, the most recent NPC, and disputes in the South China Sea. This lends to WP:DUE, and is not to mention the already lengthy lede. On a side note, human rights and democracy do not guarantee each other 100% of the time, and rambling on over Tibet without mention of Xinjiang or Inner Mongolia speaks of crony, even cynical, double standards. GotR ^Talk 08:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I never suggested East Turkestan, Southern Mongolia or anything else ought not to be mentioned. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No independent verification regarding such information, Tibet is owned by China, so such information should be added in Tibetan independence movement. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of a loss as to how a country can illegally occupy territory that every country in the world accepts that belongs to you... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on country names

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Macclesfield Bank#RfC. CMD (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Population

There's a small mistake in the population figure (right-hand box). It should be 1,370,536,875 (according to the 2010 Census quoted [16]) and not 1,339,724,852.

• The figure you give includes Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao. The article, despite its title, is about the People's Republic of China. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a point here though - the article as formulated (which of course follows majority real-world usage of the term "China" in a modern, geopolitical sense everywhere else) does include HK and Macao in its scope, although not Taiwan. Hence, the overall population should probably be noted in the infobox as the combined "mainland", HK and Macao stats, perhaps with the latter two noted separately - or additionally if we stick with the current "mainland" figure as the headline number - in parentheses or something. N-HH talk/edits 09:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Most-popuous doesn't need a hyphen, please delete it in the lede. 198.101.67.68 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Land Area

The article lists China as the second largest country by land area. It is the third after Russia and Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.10.40 (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends if you're counting total area (including coastal waters) or land area. Homunculus (duihua) 03:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Map of China

Hello all. We have not seen a conclusive resolution to the map of China dispute yet. A few months ago, the dispute resolution process on the talk page died down due to a general agreement that we should work towards creating a more universal policy towards representation political boundaries of countries, however that could not materialize. I would like to hear proposals from users watching this page, if they have something to say in this regard. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record previous threads,

• Chinese map as depicted in the article

• Geography of Taiwan link

• RfC: Guideline on depiction of disputed lands.2Fterritories

--Kondi (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sameboat, your trolling and aggravation is unhelpful. Please restrain yourself from making unproductive comments and focus on the discussion at hand. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

All Sameboat is asking is for all parties (you and him included) to STFU on this issue and leave it be. GotR ^Talk 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be begging for a block here. Don't push your luck. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's not start another quarrel here. Everyone should calm down. Also, please don't abuse the term "troll", it actually has a specific definition, and it isn't "any comment that I don't particularly like". A troll is one who intentionally wishes to make people upset, and I don't think you should jump to conclusions like that. Since the term comes with a negative connotation, throwing that word around can have all sorts of negative results. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comments, Benlinsquare. As is evidenced from my commentary before Sameboat's snide remark, my intention is only to re-start a discussion which did not conclude a few months ago. Also, saying that someone is trolling is not the same as calling someone a "troll". In any case, if any of you have ideas around an appropriate resolution of the dispute, I'll be most amenable to that. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If you failed to understand that WP:DEADHORSE eassy, let me be more straight: You should avoid reviving an old discussion if its direction obviously won't go the different way as the previous one. If we simply repeat the same tone 2 months ago, this discussion is nothing but wasting our time and adding meaningless edit histories to this talk page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nick, for those of us who were not intimately involved in the previous disputes (and who may lack the patience to read through them...), could you briefly summarize the proposals and arguments for/against? Also, could you direct me to the attempt you alluded to aimed at devising more universal standards for depicting disputed territories? Homunculus (duihua) 03:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 August 2012

second largest by land area = false. china comes third, after canada. 85.179.36.93 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The article provides a source to back up the "2nd largest claim", and already says that China might be lower on the list depending on measurements. RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 September 2012

In the fifth paragraph of the introduction, where it refers to the recognition of the PRC as an official state, there is a wrong link. The link you get when you click on 23 countries (have recognized the PRC...) leads to the article about the foreign relations of Taiwan (The Republic of China) and not the PRC.

The link is correct, because the Taiwan foreign relations article lists the 23 countries that recognise it instead of the PRC. Michaelmas1957 18:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

2nd largest and difference between land area and total area

Every list I've ever seen has Russia and then Canada listed as the largest countries in the world, how is China 2nd by "total area"???Historian932 (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Canada's is second by total area but China is second by land area: see List of countries and dependencies by area which has all the numbers. Antarctica isn't a sovereign state.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Move this article

Real China is Taiwan. This article needs to be moved to Mainland China. 24.146.221.180 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No. See Talk:China/Archive_14 for the long discussion on this, but "Real China" isn't a term anyone uses that I know, and "Mainland China" is a rarely used term used primarily by those in or referring to Hong Kong and Taiwan to contrast themselves with the PRC. In English the country is commonly called "China", although "People's Republic of China" is used in many formal contexts.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2012

Please add Cantonese to regional languages because Cantonese is the second most spoken language in China. Jayjayish (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Officially, the government definition states that Cantonese is a dialect of Chinese, not a language, and that the standardised dialect of the Chinese language is Standard Chinese. Whether Cantonese is defined as a dialect or a language is a complex issue (see A language is a dialect with an army and navy). "Cantonese is the second most spoken language in China" - uhh no, that's completely incorrect. There are more native Wuu speakers then there are Yue speakers, and Cantonese is a subset of Yue. Finally, the major Chinese subgroups (Mandarin, Wuu, Yue, Hokkien, Hakka, etc) are already mentioned within the article within the #Languages section. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2012

Please change "second largest" to "fourth largest" (country in the world) Michsend (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

China redirect

why doesn't China redirect to the Chinese supermarkets in Argentina?

Why should it? The country China is far more important. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

CfD notice

Three umbrella noms:

czar · · 16:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The province map is huge and doesn't scale properly on smaller screens

The map also slows the rendering of the entire page down. Can we do something about this? Is it even necessary to have a huge map here? Why can't we just have a thumbnail like we used to?

--Naus (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Why can't we just have a thumbnail like we used to?" - it's not 1997 anymore, and slow adapters shouldn't hinder progress for those with more powerful computers. It isn't a problem for most people, and the viewing experience of the majority shouldn't be hindered by those that are behind. It's the same reason why Google now uses HTML5 and most web mail clients now load at least 5MB of page data before even opening your emails. Try telling these websites to abandon their new features because a minority of people still use 56k connections and 400MHz CPUs. If you really have to browse the page on a Pentium II with 640x480 resolution, there's always the lite version. The map currently provides an effective and clear method of providing optimal information to the reader on the topic, and the map being on the page has been the status quo for quite a long time. Hence, if you really want to remove it, you'd have to gain community consensus first. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 21:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the size at Template:PRC provinces big imagemap alt. Adding back.Moxy (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Now it's almost illegible without a magifying glass though. I can just manage reading "Nanning" and "Guangzhou", and I'm on 1366x768. Heaven help someone with a 1920x1080 display, or someone with visual impairments. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 21:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Should fit the screen ...should not have to side scroll the whole page just for one image. Is there a template like {{Wide image}} for templates like this.Moxy (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself... I guess you could ask around at the Village Pump? If one doesn't exist, surely someone can make one. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Change it back people...it's too small. --LLTimes (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• If you need a magnifying glass to read the text on the map, then you should increase the font of the map, and not have a 857px picture that covers the entire page both horizontally and vertically on a 1280x800 screen, cutting the article in half unnecessarily. And we don't need to have the provincial capitals like "Nanning" in this map, it just adds to the clutter. The US map does not have state capitals and they manage to fit 50 states in a 600px map. This a national article, not a provincial article. Also, this idea of "powerful computers" justifying ginormous images is absurd. Many of us also use 7 and 10" tablets with midget processors. I was one of the main contributors to the original PRC and China articles, and I view this map as an eyesore. It's big, obnoxious and doesn't inform readers much given how much real estate it takes up. Solid brown is also really ugly for national maps. Have none of you guys actually seen national Chinese maps in China? They are very colorful with provinces assigned to different colors! Have a little taste, big is not always best. --Naus (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. I've increased the size of the text so it works at the smaller size: it's now 10 pt, 9 pt and 8 pt not 9, 7 and 6.5 or whatever it was before. For future reference SVG is just text so you don't need anything other than a text editor to make such small changes (though one that recognises SVG's formatting and so helpfully colours in the text makes the process even easier).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sound file

I have removed the American version of the anthem but it got reverted. There is not a parameter for the sound file - Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 8#Can we add a small button to play the anthem? - Also not sure an off tone American version is proper in anyway. We have had talks about this before - the fact the sound file is overwhelming (large undue weight). We have an article for the anthem were this file can be heard. - We have removed these American version from most articles - Any thoughts on the matter.Moxy (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I made the revert, because your edit summary says "removed american version" without really explaining anything; that edit summary tells me nothing at all. Is that file really that problematic? The file page lists it as a featured media file, and being played by the "American" military doesn't make it all the less credible, does it? I do not think that the sound file is WP:UNDUE either, especially given how massive the overall article is. Many other country articles also have media files for anthems, and it adds additional interactive information for readers without really disrupting the page. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No need for the file at all (and is why they have been removed from FA and GA articles after they were mass added with not talk on the mater). The file image is huge and overwhelming to say the least. As for the version its simply horrible and more care should be taken in adding these American navy band versions all over. As has been mentioned before the infoboexs are simply overfilled and adding a sound file that is not even a parameter is adding more junk. No consensus has been reached to add sound files to these boxes nor is there any consensus to add American naval version all over (as seen linked above). So I would suggest that a new conversation take place before more of these are added anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)

If I may interject, the file has been on this page for years, before you boldly removed it, twice or three times with no proper edit summary. I disagreed with the reasoning and reverted it, per WP:BRD, and that is why we are now here. I think you should seek consensus on removing the file from this article, since the change to the status quo are your edits. "As for the version its simply horrible and more care should be taken in adding these American navy band versions all over" - Care to explain a bit further? This is a subjective matter, not an objective matter; by what means are the US Navy band versions "simply horrible"? Wikipedia accepts free content to be used in its articles; if you can provide a better version with a free license, feel free to do so. " The file image is huge and overwhelming to say the least" - how is this the case? The little widget barely takes up 20x180 pixels, it's a needle in a haystack when compared with this giant article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 21:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead is too long

The Manual of Style recommends a length of no longer than four paragraphs (MOS:LEAD). This article's lead had a length of six paragraphs and although I've shortened it by one each paragraph it is still too long. The article on Taiwan formerly had a long lead but this was cut down to four. If Taiwan, which has a long history and complicated political status just as the PRC does, can shorten its lead then it should be easy for China too. The template at the head of the article should remain until this article has a shorter lead. -- Peter ^{Talk to me} 18:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The above message was posted not by User:Peter, but by User:Hazhk

I agree, the lead is too long, but it is difficult to summarize a country as huge and complex as China in such a short space. I approve of your merging the first paragraphs. I'll see what I can do about shortening it further without removing any vital information. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in the interest of reducing the lead to four paragraphs, it might be an idea to remove the long paragraph discussing China's political disputes with Taiwan. The first paragraph of the lead already notes that China and Taiwan are in dispute, and their disagreements are more fully discussed in the main text of the article. Any thoughts? — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. We can take a similar approach to that done on Taiwan, and if we omit all that information about the territory the ROC controls (which is actually odd to have on an article about the PRC) we could merge the two history paragraphs. -- Peter

The above message was posted not by User:Peter, but by User:Hazhk^{Talk to me} 22:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Good work, the lead looks much more concise now. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

UN membership date

The lead says China became a member in 1971.

I realize the communist PRC government of China only took the UN seat in 1971 but "China" under the ROC certainly had UN membership from the founding of the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.76.50 (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is one of a few difficulties that were overlooked when the article's title changed. This article is essentially about the People's Republic of China, with earlier chinese history tacked on at the beginning. It might be worth nothing in parentheses that the ROC formerly held the seat. -- Peter ^{Talk to me} 22:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The above message was posted not by User:Peter, but by User:Hazhk

The article says China drives on RIGHT except Hong Kong and Taiwan

I'm 99.9999% sure China drives on the left — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.62.50 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well,that's wrong. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't say anything about Taiwan since Taiwan isn't governed by the PRC and as such the PRC does not control which side of the road people drive on in Taiwan. Fortunately I wasn't able to find any comment about which side of the road people drive on - it doesn't sound like something that belongs in the article. Readin (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

remove to People's Republic of China

I think this article move to People's Republic of China --Urea1 (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No. China is the WP:commonname for the PRC. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively and the decision was to use the name "China" for the article that describes the People's Republic of China. Some of the discussion can be found here. Readin (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this discussion page. Readin (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

China has been characterized as a potential superpower - Introduction

¿no es información "vieja" que debería estar en el artículo en lugar de estar en la introducción?

No, ya ahi informacion "vieja" mira en la pajina mas abajo.¨ (Perdon no soy bueno en espaniol, pero espero que te ayude) (Im not good at spanish, but I hope I helped) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.163.16.36 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

isnt this politically baised?

i think this article should be named "peoples republic of china", since taiwan is china, too. im not taiwanesse but i think it is politically preocupied, which wikipedia shouldnt be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.133.34 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was moved to the current title after a long and comprehensive discussion during which that very point was raised and addressed. See the discussion in full at Talk:China/Archive_14. It is not going to be moved again without at least as substantive and detailed a discussion, which probably means it won't get moved again any time soon.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A better way to correct this bias (that's more reflected in mainstream sources) is to ensure that this article does not unduly imply that Taiwan is not a part of the People's Republic of China. Shrigley (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The point of common names is that they aren't politically pre-occupied. We're just doing what the English languages does. CMD (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the English language "does" Polish death camps. We can choose different words for different connotations, and it's our editorial choice whether to explain the erroneous implications of a common name (as in Polish death camps) or, like Climategate, to avoid the name altogether. Equating "China" with PRC doesn't necessarily imply that Taiwan is not a part of China, unless you take as dogma that that Taiwan is not a part of PRC; it does necessarily imply that the PRC rather than the ROC or both of them represent "China". Even though it excludes a view held by a shrinking number of KMT hardliners (see WP:UNDUE, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"), the title is neutral for all the reasons enumerated in the move request. Shrigley (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Whether the article title is "China" or "People's Republic of China" doesn't make much difference to me. But the above reasoning misrepresents the views of the Taiwanese government, which no longer claims to be the legitimate government of China. Ma Ying-jeou is not laying claim to any territory on the mainland, at least not according to the map on his home page. Kauffner (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the Constitution of ROC says. It's not official policy if it's not changed in the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.179.52 (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Where does he specifically state that though? Ma Ying-jeou has not changed the Constitution of the Republic of China which does claim Mainland China and other areas outside the PRC control. Please do some research before blatantly stating facts that you don't actually know and don't skim through stuff that only somewhat, barely, proves your point.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:China/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 14:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I really hate to quickly fail an article but this has to. Here are the primary reasons for it:

• Lack of refs- despite of large amount of refs, tons of facts are unsourced. Many times, I even see few paragraphs entirely unsourced and the amount of unsourced content is just too much. I fear that this can be addressed in a month or some
• External links and Further reading in the article are too many and with selective books respectively (FR should be removed).
• Portals? Not anything else then China and People's Republic of China portal please
• There also exists few dead links
• C/es are needed at some spots in the article as words such as "intense" should be strictly avoided

Above all this, the lack of ref will be the primary reason to fail and I won't go any further. The article is indeed in need of around 50 more refs, keeping in mind the amount of unsourced material which is extremely tough to address in a month or some. Unfortunately, I've failed it and one is free to re-nominate it once every sentence in the article is sourced. Thank you. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Map should be updated

Since territorial claims (light green) is shown on Taiwan, so should China's territorial claims (light green) on the entirety of the South Chinese Lake (South China Sea as international members call it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.179.52 (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Which map are you talking about? Also, claiming water is different from claiming land.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The Green map. The water claim is an extension (EEZ) of the islands (land) that China claims in the China Seas (S) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.179.52 (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

China is the third/fourth largest country in the world by land area according to the CIA and other sources. China's civilization is traced back 10,000BCE when the Chinese were neolithic farmers like the Egyptians. The language is traced back to over 5000 years ago to the Shang Dynasty. So 2000 BCE is wrong. It should be 3000BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativeminds34 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Shang, the first historical dynasty, was founded about 1600 BC, 3,600 years ago. It's conventional to say that China is 5,000 years old, but nothing in particular happened in 3000 BC. Five is a magic number in China, so they like to say 5,000 years. Kauffner (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Country Size

In the opening lines of the article it states that China is the second-larges country in the world by land area, and is linked to an article that clearly shows Canada as having the second-largest land area with china as third. I always thought it was common knowledge that Canada was the second-largest nation in the world by area. In any case, this is inconsistent and an obvious error that should be fixed. 99.192.55.89 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, the total area figures for Canada include Hudson Bay, much of the waters of the Northwest Passage and almost all, if not the entirety, of the Gulf of St. Lawrence (correct me if I am not), which drastically gives Canada a leg up in total area. Compare this with the largest partially enclosed sea of China: the Bohai. GotR ^Talk 03:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We should try and be consistent, perhaps some rewording is in order. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

China abolishes labor camps?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The news of the abolition of labor camps for re-education by the Chinese media reported Monday, disappeared during the day because it was probably premature, Associeted France Press reported. Television CCTV quoted Jianzghu Meng, head of the Political and Judiciary Commission of the Chinese Communist Party that "after the approval of the Chinese People's Assembly this year will be abolished system reeducation through labor". Instead of "disappeared" after the news was released much less clear that "the Chinese government is doing this year to reform the controversial re-education through labor". What to say? Obviously not only in parliamentary democracy, but in the type of Chinese communism the procedure is very important.78.2.109.80 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

HDI

In the HDI by chinese administrative provinces is .793, but in the main article the HDI is listed as .66. Which one is the updated number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.174.98 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

military parity?

My refs indicate a global impression that China now has a few high tech items, but not enough of these few items to match the numbers of America's high tech military hardware. So I think the term "military parity" is a bit of an overreach. Hcobb (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point; wording is a bit heavy-handed. The press is constantly going on about China's military power, but all credible sources indicate it's at least a decade behind the US. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Gini

The Gini coefficient is by no means low for China, as currently stated in the article (″0.474[8] (low)″). Just check the list for income inequality, China is rather high in this respect, as e.g. are the US.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 05:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Article size

I think article way too long. Its about 228k, way bigger than the India article (a FA with size of 169k) and the Japan article (another FA with only 120k). Does anyone have any ideas on how to trim this article down? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What matters is the readable prose size which is 87k. Even so it should probably be trimmed down a bit, but it is an important topic, so I wouldn't expect it should be trimmed that significantly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Country articles have always been really huge. Though it wouldn't hurt to trim things down a bit, we shouldn't do so excessively. Some might not agree, but I think country articles naturally are quite large in size. United States and United Kingdom aren't exactly small either. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that China is an absurdly large, old, complex and fast-changing country, and accurately summarizing it in a small amount of prose is inordinately difficult. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I will see if I can trim some of the text down a little bit. — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

lots can be trimmed. The article should be an overview - Foreign relations, Economy, Religion and Geography can all be cut back alot. i.e do we need so much of a history lesson in the Religion section? Moxy (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've cut back a good deal from the bloated Economy section now. Will do more later. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now reduced the amount of prose by about 7 kilobytes; there's still quite a bit of excess to deal with, but I think the article isn't so badly bloated now. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Now trimmed about 12 kilobytes. Much less excess prose, but key facts and sources are all still included. I don't intend to do much more paring back of the article, but if you notice something obviously excessive or unnecessary, let me know and I'll merge/delete it. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Conventional literal translation of Zhongguo

I feel that there should be some mention of the conventional literal translation of Zhōngguó as "Middle Kingdom" in the lead. Even though there is scholarly criticism of this translation (yet no other widely-accepted alternative), there is no doubt that the phrase - was it coined by James Legge? - has widespread literary currency that lasts until today; for example, when news magazines use puns like "The Middling Kingdom". What do other editors think? Shrigley (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Shrigley that there could be a mention, but not in the lead, and only if it is made clear that it is a common, though long-standing mistake, as the article Names of China makes clear.

The best translation of Zhongguo is perfectly simple: "China."

"Middle Kingdom" serious examples are 19th or early 20th century, and recent use is mostly jocular. True, it's a strange situation. Although Zhongguo is the only name Chinese themselves use for their country in common speech, it was never the official or formal name. Under the dynasties, the official name was the name of the particular dynasty, and today the official name is either ZhongHua Remmin Gonghe Guo (People's Republic of China) or Zhonghua Gonghe Guo (Republic of China).

But I suppose common names of countries are not always logical. In English we refer to "America" or "United States" even though the official name is the United States of America. We in the US refer to ourselves as "Americans" even though Canadians and Mexicans also inhabit North America. And we don't worry about a literal translation the names of other countries.

The earliest use I know is Williams The Middle Kingdom (1848). I'd be surprised, though only mildly, if Legge used it. Williams says he uses it because it is the most common name for the country in Chinese and because China is "middle" between barbarism and civilization. ch (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)