Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China

Hello everybody. Before we begin, I would just like to make sure that nobody has any reason that they do not want me to mediate this case. If everyone could just indicate that they are willing to move on with me as the mediator, we can proceed with this mediation shortly. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sure! — Sebastian 01:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Fine by me.--Jerry 01:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me too.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• No problems here. nat.utoronto 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Beginning Mediation

Ok everybody, it looks like we can begin mediation now. To start things off, could I please have a representative from each side provide a little background. I would just like a small explanation of the dispute, and each side's opinion. --דניאל - Dantheman531 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to introduce me first before I speak up here. I am not a representative for either side. I am usually a mediator (with WP:SLR and WP:MEDCAB), and got to the discussion through Wikipedia:Requested moves and my general interest in Chinese culture. I first voted for one option, but after investigating some more I abstained, because the underlying problem is not so easy to decide. Unlike many other mediation cases, which only get to mediation when parties are so frustrated with the jungle they created on talk pages that they reluctantly agree with mediation as a last resort, this case was opened because everybody agreed that it has potential for mediation, and I think that the civilty of the parties makes mediation as easy as such a hard issue can be.

I'm not convinced that it is really necessary to rehash the issue in this case. It has already been very succinctly and fairly described at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Premier of the Republic of China#Issues to be mediated. For more detail, there is a constructive and relatively concise discussion on Talk:Premier of the Republic of China#Requested move already. I really encourage you to read that discussion first. — Sebastian 23:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe I made a mistake when I recommended mediation. To be honest, I wouldn't know how to mediate this, either. It appears that it can only be one of a small set of possible titles, which means that all we need is a fair decision for one of them. Should we bring this to ArbCom instead? — Sebastian 23:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I do not think that ArbCom would be the appropriate place for this discussion as the Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious of disputes. As a mediator, I will not be able to take a side to this argument; however, I will try to help facilitate a discussion by which a decision can be made. It is up to you whether you wish to continue with mediation or pursue other options, but ArbCom would probably not be the venue for this discussion. --דניאל - Dantheman531 00:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, that's what WP:ArbCom says. However, it is unclear how ArbCom defines "serious dispute". I sincerely hope it is not defined by how fierce the parties fight each other. I believe the issue is serious since it has global political implications. As an example, I know that software companies go through painstaking processes to ensure that they don't use wrong language in the Taiwan/ROC issue. Please do take this as seriously as it is in the real world. — Sebastian 04:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that ArbCom pretty much only handles cases of user conduct and Wikipedia policty, etc. I do not believe that it generally accepts content disputes. --דניאל - Dantheman531 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we try to handle this issue here first, and then move on to ArbCom if the problem cannot be solved here?--Jerry 20:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I added my statement. Sorry for not responding sooner. I do not know what I need to do at first. Chris! _ct 04:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jerrch

My main point is that the article should be moved to President of the Executive Yuan simply because the current name is neither a common name or the official name. The most common name of the position is "Premier of Taiwan" with 25,000 ghits (see Talk:Premier_of_the_Republic_of_China#Tables), but it's considered inappropriate because the premiers from 1928 to 1949 were not known by this title. The second most common name is "President of the Executive Yuan" with 5,420 ghits. It also happens to be the official name both in English and in Chinese (行政院院長). Chris is somehow claiming that he is following WP:NC, even though "Premier of the Republic of China" has only 915 ghits.

Chris claims that he is following WP:UCN too, stating that ghits aren't reliable but, at the same time, asserting that "Republic of China" is more recognizable than "Executive Yuan," providing ghits as his source. And he has not yet responded to my last reply.

Also, there are five branches (called Yuans) in the government of Taiwan. And the heads of these Yuans are all called the "President of XXX Yuan," for example, President of the Legislative Yuan, so I guess it's a consistency thing also.--Jerry 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WP:NCON: A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

President of the Executive Yuan passes all of them. It is in common usage in English (see ghits table provided by Sebastian), it is the official name stated in the constitution, and it is a self-identifying term (院長 can be translated into "President"). Premier of the ROC, on the other hand, passed probably only the third one.--Jerrch 14:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me summarize my statement:

• "Premier of Taiwan" is the most common name (no dispute)
• "President of the Executive Yuan" is the official name (no dispute)
• "President of the Executive Yuan" is the second most common name. Having 5,420 ghits, it is somewhat in common usage, therefore passes the objective criteria
• "Premier of Taiwan" cannot be used because premiers from 1928 to 1949 were never known by this title
• Since when did "Premier of the Republic of China" come into play?--Jerrch 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Chrishomingtang

My point is that the article title should stayed at its current state because there is no source suggesting that the purposed name is more common than the one we have now. Jerrch insists that "President of Executive Yuen" is official and more common than the current name. While I recognize the purposed name being official, I disagree with the fact that it is more common. I think that the current name is more common than the purposed one. As of now, Jerrch have provided nothing other than ghits to prove his point. One problem with Google search is that Google will search for the term from any websites. Looking at the result of the search, a large majority of the searched sites are Taiwanese websites using "President of Executive Yuen" as the official term. While this official term is and could be more common in Taiwan locally, it might not be the case internationally. And this is where the problem comes in, WP:NC states that "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity." And I think that the purposed term might not be easily recognized by foreign editors. "President of Executive Yuen" is also a very ambiguous term if it is a part of the title. I choose the current one over "President of Executive Yuen" simply for this reason. Also, WP:NC(CN) says that common name should be used, not official name. So the new name could be problematic.

As clarification, I do admit that this is mainly based on my personal observation and analysis, and might not reflect the truth. But I think this is an issue. And all I want to do is to find a consensus for this problem. If consensus ultimately decided that I am wrong, I will gladly accept it.Chris! _ct 04:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing for clarification. I do not regard ghits as a good or reliable source. I just point out to Jerrch that if ghits were used, then it is obvious that ROC is more recognizable than Executive Yuan.Chris! _ct 04:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:NCON objective criteria, the purposed name fails 1 as it is not in common usage in English. No evidence, except for ghits, has showed that it is common and I have explained the problem with ghits above. It passes 2 and 3 because it is an official name. But passing this criteria really means nothing as the WP:NCON specifically addresses the problem. Here is a quite: "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names." Chris! _ct 20:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Google hits

Since Google hits have been mentioned, here's a table for everyone's convenience:

title	google hits on .gov.tw	google hits worldwide	% of all gov.tw	% of all worldwide	average percentage
Premier of Taiwan	4	25,000	0%	69%	35%
President of the Executive Yuan	2,930	5,420	83%	15%	49%
Premier of the Executive Yuan	350	4,840	10%	13%	12%
Premier of the Republic of China	265	915	7%	3%	5%

— Sebastian 06:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation of 院長

Since it has been claimed that "['President of the Executive Yuan'] also happens to be the official name [...] in Chinese (行政院院長)" I need to clarify that 院長 is usually not translated with "president". More direct translations are director or chair(person). (This consists of 院=Yuan and 長=chief, head.) — Sebastian 06:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese is less precise in terminology than English. "Zhang 長" could mean a lot of things meaning the leader of an organization. Examples: "xiaozhang" (campus head = principal of elementary school, university president, rector, or chancellor), "zuzhang" (group head = director of a division within a corporation)...

I don't think any translation is inherently better given this imprecision. For example, 院長 could mean the president of the Academia Sinica, the Dean of the Taiwan University College of Medicine, the Abbot at a local monastery, etc. It is a function of what the institution is called 院 rather than 院長 having a term directly correlating with it in English. --Jiang (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the points being made above:

• 行政(院)院長 is the official name
• "Premier of the Republic of China" and "President of the Executive Yuan" are both official translations of the official name. As they are in English, neither are official names.--Jiang (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, hopefully you knew by official name what I meant was the official translation. I think that Premier of the ROC and President of the EY are both "governmental translations" but not necessary "official translations." Since the government obviously uses the "President of the EY" more as a translation, I believe that it is the official translation.--Jerrch 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is fallacious. If both terms are in fact government recognized translations, then both terms are official names. Using one term more than the other doesn't make one term more official than the other.Chris! _ct 02:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So are you implying that even Premier of the Executive Yuan would be an official translation? And 2930 vs 265 is definitely a big difference. Even Premier of the Executive Yuan is used more (according to the table) than premier of the ROC. I do, however, recognize the fact that Premier of the ROC is a governmental translation and would be redirected to the President of the EY page if moved.--Jerrch 02:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If the government uses it, then yes I am saying it is an official translation. If the government does not use it, then it is not official. It is as simple as that. As I said, using one term more than the other doesn't make one term more official than the other.Chris! _ct 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. So then if all of the four names are official, which one do we choose?--Jerrch 03:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we look at the common usage of each term and decide accordingly. And that is where we disagree with other. You think President of EY is more common, and I think the current name is more common. Chris! _ct 06:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me ask this question, and excuse me if I sound ignorant. Besides which translation is more common, is there a particular reason why the article should be named one or the other? --דניאל - Dantheman531 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The only reason for mediation is to decide which translation is more common. Chris! _ct 01:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

List of premiers of China

Hey, have you guys seen this? nat.utoronto 11:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I recognize the fact that the Presidents of the Executive Yuan are considered premiers of China, at least de jure.--Jerrch 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a new suggestion. Since someone added info on Premier of Cabinet, Secretary of State, and Premier of State Council, which are positions before the the establishment of the Executive Yuan, under the history section, we can put them into two articles:

• Premier of the Republic of China (covering info on premiers before establishment of the EY; matches Chinese article: 中華民國總理)
• President of the Executive Yuan (covering info on premiers after establishment of the EY; matches Chinese article: 行政院院長)--Jerrch 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea - what do others think? John Smith's (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that might work... nat.utoronto 10:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Inactivity

Parties, I have noticed that, following Daniel's recent departure from Wikipedia, you are left without a Mediator in this case. Do you still wish to proceed with the Mediation, and do you, as a collection of parties, view it as, (a) necessary, ~3 months down the line, and (b) viable to succeed?

Feel free to give feedback below this comment, and I will update the Committee accordingly. If it is your wish that this case be closed, that is another option: the choice is completely yours. Kind regards, AGK (contact) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Three of the seven parties had agreed on my proposal, I think as soon as the other parties express their thoughts, this case can be closed soon.--Jerrch 01:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)