php-deluxe.net - description Naming conventions Chinese Archive5

Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive5

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

continued from

==Solution==

Is it time to reach a solution Shall we go on a poll — 23:06, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) *As the one who initiated the discussion, I support the moves. — 17:35, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) This section has been here for 2 weeks from the time the first vote was cast. Should it be closed or be extended — 10:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

If the poll at this section is to be closed, shall we proceed to a case-by-case poll, like what had been done at 21:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I guess we should now proceed to case-by-case poll. — 20:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have added a new page for case-by-case poll at 12:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

===What solution===

I was going to vote on for renaming because I was under the impression that the convention has been agreed upon, but it s hard for me to find evidence for that outcome. I m sorry if I m just confused by the sheer amount of text.

My main reasons for voting for renaming would be:

We should follow the naming convention as a matter of course. Actually, this should not require another poll.

Political agendas aside, I see this as similar to the use of England or Great Britain vs UK .

I find more respectable editors among the proponents.

Some of the opponent s statements, such as why the hell are you going around campaigning You don t trust [...] people [...] are off the mark. (Campaigning has been an integral part of any democracy since its invention.)

03:04, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) :Thanks for sharing your opinion Sebastian. I myself is neither optimistic that this can be solved. Wikipedia is not as an ideal place as many might have thought. — 07:23, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

: I share your sentiment about Wikipedia. For a volunteering activity there is a surprising amount of bullying and dishonesty going on. But in this particular case, i just meant that the link doesn t point to a clear statement about the result of the vote. 08:08, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

:It assesses whether an entry satisfies the naming conventions, and to be retitled accordingly. — 08:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

: I guess I m still confused. I still don t know if the naming convention has been decided. Either way, it seems, if it s still open for discussion or already decided, I don t see why we re voting on the conversion. If open, then we should either wait till it s closed or present a complete case with the consequences. If decided, then i don t see why we should vote about implementing it. 19:18, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

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

Learnt from the lesson on , a consensus here is essential and a prerequisite.

Important note

This is not a debate on the naming conventions, but its application and enforcement. Please do not oppose the moves just because you oppose the naming conventions. If you do want to comment on the current naming conventions, please [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29&action=edit§ion=new start a new section] on this page.

Precedents

on )

existing articles: List of Chinese companies, Demographics of China, Cinema of China

Naming conventions

Relevant statements from the is the appropriate term to describe the situation which Hong Kong and Macao (and the territories under the ROC) are excluded.)

Also relevant: Wikipedia reflects the neutral reality and considers the term China not to coincide with any particular sovereign state or government. In particular, the word China should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration of the People s Republic of China or with Mainland China. .

Categories and articles involved

It is not necessary to support or oppose all of the moves below. In other words, you can object on the general direction, but support one or some of them, or vice versa.

==Discussion on China / PRC vs. mainland China ==

Note: Here s a place for discussion. This is not a poll.

Object, yes, object! The term mainland China is absolutely meaningless semantic drivel. It should be removed from the naming conventions. Mainland China should be used rarely (or not at all! use a more specific term) to disambiguate from the greater China . China in general refers to the anything chinese. It is also understood as a general term to refer to the PRC and it s possessions. English allows fluidity around a term and people understand meaning by context. There is not a need to rename articles from China to be more specific that it is only certain parts of PRC China. People understand, do not dumbify to uselessness because of some naming convention. If 23:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

: Mainland China is not just a casual or informal term. The phrase the mainland of China is used in laws in Hong Kong (search for mainland of China at http://www.legislation.gov.hk). The Mainland Affairs Commission (MAC) of the Executive Yuan of the ROC also uses the term mainland China (see 00:03, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) ::This is talk:naming conventions and if I want to say the naming conventions are bad, i will. I won t let the Executive Yuan of the ROC (the ROC being Taiwan) define the name used by an emerging superpower nation-state. It may be a useful term for subentities that are NOT part of mainland China to differentiate themselves but it is the wrong term to use for the main entity. HK and Taiwan don t get to define China. China does and the one word China is it. 01:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Good. I am interested to know how you d comment on the following materials produced by the PRC government. :* Latest Satistics on SARS on Mainland China (15/04/2003) [http://genevamissiontoun.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/46961.html] :* Education System in Mainland China [http://www.gzscse.gov.cn/english/China/system.htm] :* Regulations of the State Council for Encouragement of Investment by Overseas Chinese and Compatriots from Hong Kong and Macao [http://kuching2.mofcom.gov.cn/article/chinalaw/foreigntrade/200411/20041100004348.html] :* Reform gradualism and evolution of exchange rate regime in Mainland China (a speech delievered by the governor of the People s Bank of China) (doc format) [http://www.pbc.gov.cn/english/showacc.aspcol=hanglingdaojianghua&id=8] :If you want to comment on the naming conventions, please start a new section. — 01:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) ::Yes, the PRC is differentiating from the other regions it controls. 04:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Right. In other words the term mainland China is not only used by Hong Kong or the ROC, but also the PRC itself. — 15:07, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) Object. Obviously an objection is in order, especially when there is actually a proclaimation that this result is going to form the basis for ALL the above changes! Each of those cases warrant discussions of their own.-- 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I am afraid this is not the case. — 01:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) ::In reference to-- 05:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Object For the reasons outlined above. How long will it take for Instantnood to recognise he is in a minority here, that many people have read his arguments, but disagree with them, and that WP is governed by consensus 19:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object of mainland China is ugly and cumbersome. If particular regions are included/excluded and confusion may otherwise occur, put it in the text. 20:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I support consistency. If the Wikipedia community had a consensus on the naming convention of 02:06, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) *there isn t a naming convention for mainland china other than as an acceptable term when the need to differentiate from the greater China is necessary. Most of the time, and most of these changes, that differentiation isn t necessary. Using mainland China as a primary term is actually against the convention. (added by at 06:45, Mar 12, 2005) : The term Mainland China has never been accepted as an agreeable term to refer to the country. Refer to below.-- 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Even by doing so it is not used to referred to as a country, but a part (though a major part) of a country. It is a matter of presentation. It does not imply mainland China itself is a sovereign state. — 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :::So long that the above categories are classifications by country, then you are indeed calling Mainland China a country. Refer to below.-- 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Quoted from your words at 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :::And what is wrong with that quote The PRC often refers to the ROC as Taiwan , avoiding the term ROC because it refuses to recognise it. The ROC refers to the PRC as Mainland China because it also refuses to recognise the PRC. But does this than equate to Mainland China and Taiwan becoming acceptable names for countries, although it is very much more common for the later, and although some of us have been criticising that assumption-- 16:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Then am I calling mainland China as a country, or is it just an issue of presentation — 16:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :::You are presenting the term as a country. And I dispute that, if that is not obvious by now.-- 16:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) I support as well. And I don t think things would look ugly at all if they re changed. Why are people so afraid of the term mainland China -- ) 02:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :My reason for disagreeing with the above is this. The term Mainland China itself may not be a major issue, but it is often a sub-category of categories filed by country. So, Roads of China , for example, may come under a category Roads by country . When we rename Roads of China as Roads of Mainland China , we end up having Mainland China appearing as a country amongst other country entries. I do not find that acceptable. When the title reads as XXX of China , I feel we have room to have XX of HK , XX of Macau and XX of Taiwan/ROC appearing both as subcategories of XX of China as per our conventions set earlier, plus also appearing in the XXX by country category as well as a bonus. Personally, I prefer to see XXX of China split into XX of the PRC and XX of ROC/Taiwan and have XX of Hong Kong and XX of Macau as subcategories of XX of the PRC . Isnt this the proper way that countries should be filed as-- 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::If you argue in this way then strictly speaking the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan) are not two countries. They belong to the same country, and technically a country in war time that two powers controlling different parts of the country. In other words neither the PRC nor the ROC is qualified to be listed or categorised as country. — 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :::Precisely because the two are in theory not countries, that we have some pages with XXX in China which contains information on both the PRC and the ROC. This has been well explained in this very convention, even if it was contested. If we apply that logic to pages, I dont see why it canot be applied to categories. What you are doing to the categories runs contrary to conventions. For example, why do you resist my restoration of Category:Airports in China to include all subcategories related to both airports in the PRC and the ROC, and instead tried to remove Category:Airports of Hong Kong and Category:Airports of Macau out of that category, plus revert my inclusion of Category:Airports of Taiwan within that category (although I also allowed it to appear seperately at the same time)-- 13:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::Please refer to the current treatment at 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :::::Oh....so you are telling me Mainland China gets listed as a country in those two instances Thanks. Something needs to be done about them then! Meanwhile, did anyone not notice that Instantnood has been silently moving plenty of those pages to the Mainland China category in place of the PRC-- 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::The real side of the fact is that the English word country is a relatively vague concept, as oppose to sovereign state . Many lists or categories all across Wikipedia are not limited to cover only sovereign states. — 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :::If you are going to contest the notion of what country means, then you have to go beyond this small little exercise here. If you want consistency, and to accept that the term is vague, then may I ask if you allow the creation of Category:Airports of Kurdistan and Category:Airports of Tibet and list then independently, since they are also countries by certain definitions And meanwhile, how would you treat any classification related to the United Kingdom, since it is composed of countries Meanwhile, could you tell us just how often is the term Mainland China considered a country even if we were to consider the word country as contestable, which is true in actual fact-- 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::As you like it. But I am afraid everyone can tell. — 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :::::Answer those questions.-- 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Except diplomatic relations and national defence, Hong Kong and Macao are on their own. Ministries of the CPG of the PRC have no jurisdiction over Hong Kong and Macao affairs. For instance if Hong Kong has to build an additional university it is not the business of the education ministry of the PRC. — 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :::This point has been repeated over and over. Yes, we are more then aware that the two SARS SARs run their own economical and transportational affairs. But as has also been repeatedly retorted, we are talking about a classification along political lines here. Having a classification of XXX, even if it has nothing to do with politics, appearing in a classiciation by country is not a politically NPOV. Try creating Category:Musicians of Tibet and then listing it in Category:Musicians by country instead of Category:Musicians of China , and then come tell me if that is a politically NPOV-- 13:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::Please tell why Tibet is a valid and applicable analogy here. — 15:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :::::You insisted that so long that the topic in question is not political, it is ok to ignore political considerations in presentation. Fine. I chose Tibet because it is so damn obvious. You can ask yourself how it will be like if do it with Shanghai too for all I care, coz the same theory applies.-- 16:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::In other words you re implying the case of Tibet is comparable, and therefore Tibet is a valid and applicable analogy, am I right — 16:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :::::Wrong. Feel free to substitute with any other political entity you can think of. ;)-- 16:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Support. It s clear that the conventions have been defined beforehand and we should try to adhere to those standards. If people have problems with the convention itself, that should have been brought up beforehand. BTW, some of the articles you proposed to rename probably don t apply. For instance, the current text in 06:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I guess the content of some of the articles might have to be slightly modified, for instance 07:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) ::In the same way that you can modify the contents so that they suit the new categories, they can also be modified to suit the existing categories.-- 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Right. — 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :The conventions, however, did not state that Mainland China is an acceptable equivalant to refer to the PRC as a country. Do note, as I said before, that these categories are also classified under XXX by country . I do not think there is a country called Mainland China . The only reason Hong Kong and Macau sometimes appears under country listings is due to the 1 country 2 systems formula, which I am more then open to allow them appearing both as countries or as being classified under the PRC, or either one as the situation deems it neccesary.-- 08:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::In this proposal mainland China is not used as an equivalent to the PRC. The scope of the content of the articles or categories covers only the mainland China, and therefore they need a proper title. Having them subcategorised undermine their character as dependent territories (or special territories, as you may prefer) instead of ordinary subnational entities. — 12:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) :::This assumption is only true, if you also then create new categories called XXX of the People s Republic of China and then make XXX of Mainland China , XXX of Hong Kong and XXX of Macau as subcategories of it. The fact is that each of the above categories you are trying to rename are subcateries of XXX by country so you are, intentionally or otherwise, equating to insisting that the People s Republic of China has to be called Mainland China in country lists. I do not find that acceptable, unless you do what I suggested above. Trying to create international space for Hong Kong-related articles is perfectly alright as far as knowledge and this encyclopedia is concerned, but to therefore cause the international standing of another entity, and in this case, the holding entity of Hong Kong, to suffer by refering to it merely with a sub-geographical name when refering to the country is an extreme exercise we cannot take lightly.-- 13:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Comments: I think . All other subcategories are airlines of sovereign states. The three subcategories do not have further subcategories. That appears wrong, but how to fix it :Politically, although Hong Kong and Taiwan are not countries, listing them among other countries are allowed in the context of airlines . For all practical reasons the three regions have independent administration of their airlines. There is no political dispute about that. On the other hand, listing Tibet among the list is not appropriate. However, it seems to be more appropriate to replace China with mainland China for two reasons: :#That category actually excludes airlines from other regions of China . Mainland China is the accurate description there according to the convention. :#Listing China among Hong Kong and Taiwan seems to imply that the last two are not part of China . :That was how I came to the same conclusion as that most of the moves listed should be done according to the current convention. :If I understand the logic of listed as subcategories. Personally I find that acceptable too, but I am afraid other Wikipedians may not. It may also be difficult for someone unfamiliar with the politics of that region to find the last two categories if they are not listed among the Asian countries but only as a subcategory of China. :Let s discuss on how to resolve the issue using that example, and see if we can set a standard and state it clear as the convention. -- 02:11, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC) :* Felix, many of us DO disagree with the NPOV section of the naming convention but either nobody wants to have that discussion or when it occurs, it occurs within the context of proposals like this, where it doesn t actually affect the main article. I for one, have no problem with airlines of HK being a sub of Airlines of the PRC, or Airlines of China, and Taiwan being seperate altogether from either, maybe in Airlines of Asia, as it s own independent entity WHICH IT IS, and which the naming conventions ALSO say is an acceptable solution. 02:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) :**I have no problem with that arrangement either, but I am sure someone will oppose it strongly. What I want is just a consensus on one convention and then apply it consistenly. By the way, there IS a discussion on the NPOV section on this page. If we can come up with any decision in this context, we should also change the main article accordingly. So feel free to discuss here or in that section. -- 04:05, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC) :::I would like to remind the participants that claiming Taiwan being not a country is a clear POV and not neutral. The ROC government made it clear many times: ROC is an independent sovereign country. Although I also tend to disagree with that claim either. To be more precise, Taiwan is a territory under ROC occupation, my POV. (added by at 08:57, Mar 16, 2005) ::::Thanks Mababa. The most tend-to-NPOV treatment would be a description of the status quo, by saying Taiwan is a territory currently administered by the ROC (without addressing its legality). It is a POV and is not neutral to say Taiwan is currently a sovereign state on its own. — 09:44, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC) :::::Thanks for Instantnood s response. For that very reason, that is why we have this long discussion about separating Taiwan from ROC. But again, though my POV supports this treatment, many people use the terms interchangably to refer the government. Though we do not adapt that POV and use it as truth, I believe that we should at least reflect that POV in the articles for the sake of reaching NPOV. 04:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==A poll==

Shall we go on a poll If yes, is now the right timing — 10:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC) :Instantnood created his categories and started populating them without getting any concensus here. 23:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::May I add that he recently also created 03:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) Please start the poll if you would like to object the proposal. — 08:57, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Important: Please see the Basics section 01:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) *As the one who initiated the discussion, I support the moves. — 20:17, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) *I oppose all moves that mention Mainland China, unless it s a move away from it. - 21:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object For the reasons outlined above. How long will it take for Instantnood to recognise he is in a minority here, that many people have read his arguments, but disagree with them, and that WP is governed by consensus 19:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object of mainland China is ugly and cumbersome. If particular regions are included/excluded and confusion may otherwise occur, put it in the text. 20:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tentatively support moves from PRC or China to Mainland China. (I might want to look at the moves case-by-case but I support the idea in general.) I m beginning to like the term Mainland China more and more. For starters, it describes a very real political and economic entity. It is a natural category that arises when Chinese people conceive of Greater China. It is used extensively on Chinese Wikipedia. It is also wonderfully NPOV, and is used by people of every political opinion, because it separates out Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan without implying anything whatsoever about their status (note: you can t say the same thing about separating PRC and ROC.) Heck, Mainland China even fields its own Olympic team. Why is everyone so scared of this term -- ) 23:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

::ran, you ve pointed out things to me and we ve agreed to move or rename articles, sometimes in entirely different ways than what was proposed (like the autonomous regions article). this mainland China business, while I respect your seeing it as a neutral term, is being extensively used to push POV, which I don t think you d support. I think that s why you d like to see it on a case-by-case basis. take a good look at how it s currently being abused before supporting it. 00:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::I ve looked at how it s being abused , and I conclude that it is not. In what ways do you think it s being abused Do you mean the categories business above -- ) 00:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) ::(response to Ran s message at 23:42, Mar 24, 2005) Don t worry. As long as the general directions is agreed we can do something like 00:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) :To instantnood: I ve going to express my tentative support to all of your article moves proposed so far. I m still looking at the category moves. Some of them may be unnecessary. -- ) 00:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) ::You can always object any of the proposed moves.

In fact some of the categories titled ..of the PRC can be divided into three subcategories, i.e. of mainland China , of Macao and of Hong Kong . — 07:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) :Sounds good to me. But I still think categories should be done on a case by case basis. -- ) 16:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) ::Of course. Definitely. — 16:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) *Obviously oppose, as long as the term Mainland China is being used as thou it is a country. It is not, and even if it sounds nice or seems to be more politically NPOV (which I am beginning to notice has underlying POV here as far as Instantnood s agendas are concerned), it has not been popularly accepted as a proper terminology for any country. The only times it is useful is when there is a need to talk about the PRC minus HK and Macau. Thats it. I dont think it is being put down merely because people are afraid of the term .-- 00:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) *:No one is referring to Mainland China as a country. It simply functions like a country in many fields, and should be treated like one in those fields. No one is going to argue for, say, ) 00:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) ::: As to no one: Instantnood is referring to mainland China as a country. And yes, the economy of mainland China is the economy of the People s Republic of China. HK isn t apart of that, yes, so the article needs to explain that. The usage mainland China defines the PRC for what it isn t, not for what it is. That isn t acceptable. 01:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::I have never do so. — 01:12, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) :::: And yes, the economy of mainland China is the economy of the People s Republic of China. -- Funny, then what was that weird money that I saw in Hong Kong Didn t look like the Renminbi to me... ::::Instantnood is referring to Mainland China as a country in contexts where it functions like one . -- ) 01:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) :::::I didn t even say that. I said it s just a matter of presentation, like metropolitan France on a list of countries by population or by area. — 01:24, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) ::::::You happily trivalise the power of presentation in swaying views and opinions. Why dont we use the term Taiwan in all references to the ROC, and insist that it is just a form of presentation anyway-- 18:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::Simple. Territories currently administered by the ROC = Taiwan + something. — 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::You seem quite happy to disallow the Taiwanese from using the term Taiwan, yet you insist the PRC folks has to use Mainland China. The former seems to be a simple solution for you, yet you get all tensed up over minute details in the later. Are we seeing personal interests over factual accuracy here-- 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::(to Ran s comment at 01:19, Mar 25, 2005) The HK economy is seperate, but the mainland economy is the economy of the nation and should be named as such. don t define the PRC by what it is not. And instantnood is referring to mainland China anywhere where the PRC and HK don t exactly intersect. That s wrong. It s defining the nation by it s sub-entities. 01:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::If you were right, in that case, any reference to the Netherlands, say, Economy of the Netherlands, could be wrong. The Netherlands is not a member of the UN, but the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is one sovereign state with three parts. The 01:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) ::::: funny then, how 01:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::The PRC figure on the list of countries by population covers only mainland China. I am not changing it there at this moment because somebody will probably revert it. DOMs of France are integral part of France, with the same status as régions in metropolitan France, except 02:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) ::::: I ve changed the population page. A figure that claims to be of the PRC but does not include Hong Kong and Macau is false and misleading. ::::: What are you people going to think of next Merging ) 02:57, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) :::(to Ran s comment at 00:39, Mar 25, 2005) You are drawing the line too thin, and I believe your general audience is not going to be able to see the difference, if any. Treating a geographic term of a country as a country because it is assumed to be functioning like one is as good as refering to the term as a country. And as far as I am concerned, that is not acceptable. The economy of the PRC can start of dealing with mainly issues in Mainland China, touch on the two SARS by describing economic links and legislation which takes place between them and the rest of the country, before providing links for the full article to the respective economy pages of each SAR. These two SARS do not exit economically independently as much as some of you wish to believe, and they have much scope for discussion within the context of the economy of the PRC, and not confined in the economy of the mainland.-- 18:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::What are the legislations which take place between the SARs and the rest of the country In what way they are not economically independent as sone of you wish to believe — 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) :::::Well....much more than you wish to admit: :::::*The One country, two systems takes centrestage in dealing with affairs between the two SARSSARs and the rest of the PRC. :::::*The Hong Kong Basic Law was not created by only by Hong Kongers for only Hong Kongers. :::::*The Chief Executive of HK didnt get his post without meddling from the PRC. :::::*Travellers between the entities need the Home Return Permit/exit endorsement. Why would a normal passport not do, if they are just normal international boundaries like any other :::::*The building of the Hong Kong International Airport, although initiated by the British prior to 1997, needed the approval from the Beijing authorities before going ahead. I tot there were claims that transport is not political :::::*So, air travllers flying from the two SARS to the rest of China was claimed to be international because normal immigratory and customs procedues apply . I do wonder how many of you have actually observed how the PRC airlines such as Air China and China Southern Airlines interprets the markets in the two SARS. I dont think it was mere coincidence, that both companies report their traffic statistics in three categories: Domestic , which refers to flights to Mainland China, Regional , which only refers to all flights into and out of the two SARSSARs, and International , which refers to all other flights outside the country. This is in contrast to how Cathay Pacific groups the Mainland Chinese destinations as international as per any other destination outside the PRC. What does this imply Sometimes we have to realise things can be interpreted quite differently from the opposite party. :::::*The Individual Visit Scheme, a PRC initiative, came into effect to help Hong Kong s tourism industry, and her economy as a whole. I dont see this scheme extended to anywhere outside the PRC. :::::*The Hong Kong branch of the Bank of China is one of the three banks which issues currency notes in Hong Kong. :::::*The Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement heavily demonstrates just how unusually well treated the two SARS can be if the Beijing government wishes to, and at any rate, the economical tie up is simply going to be much more enforced. It is a trade and economic deal of the PRC, and it can be fully described in the Economy of the People s Republic of China. Or do we have to split it up between the Economy of Mainland China, as well as the Economy of Hong Kong :::::*And of coz, the 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::The 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ::::::How would you explain why i) 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ::::::Some facts: i) Vehicles from Hong Kong and Macao have to apply a licence plate from the mainland (usually Guangdong) to go onto roads in the mainland. Vehicles in Canada and the United States can cross the border without any application. The same applies among some members of the European Union. ii) Hong Kong, Macao and the mainland uses different currencies. iii) Investments by Hong Kong and Macao businessmen are foreign investments. iv) Hong Kong and Macao residents are not allowed to join the PLA, PRC s military. v) Extradition is the own business of Hong Kong and Macao. Steven Cheung, an Hong Kong-born Chinese American economists, is wanted by the United States. He cannot stay in Hong Kong, but mainland China. — 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) :::::::Amazing stuff! If we can talk this long over these issues in the PRC, I am pretty sure they are worthy of encylopedic articles...on the PRC ;) -- 13:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Chinese, 大陆 is used mostly in contexts where one needs to make a specific distinction, not in all contexts. You wouldn t use it in an article about US-China relations, for instance... but you probably would use it in an article about cross-straits issues. It s a little bit like the 00:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*:Alaska and Hawaii are not particularly different from the other 48 states of the United States. They do not participate independently in economic organizations; they do not have separate currencies; they do not have final adjudication; they do not have separate political parties from the 48 states; they do not allow organizations banned in the 48 states; they don t have separate customs authorities or tariffs; they do not have separate passports or require a visa for entry from the 48 states; they do not field their own Olympic teams. *:I agree that Mainland China is a term used only when a distinction needs to be made. But this situation arises much, much more often than in the case of the Contiguous United States. -- ) 00:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) :::And your usage of the term Mainland China is supposed to reflect all these differences Well if that is the case, the term dosent sound very NPOV at all, does it-- 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Regardless of Alaska and Hawaii, the US has plenty of jurisdictions where main US law doesn t apply, or has some unique context. Within states, even, as well. From states, to a variety of insular areas to sovereign nations within the nation (native tribelands). The balance between states rights and federal powers is a constant discussion and moving line in american civics. I d be as if y all were trying to rename the entire US to some term because a bunch of laws didn t apply in Dixie. That is the relevance, every nation has jurisdictions where federal power is absent, excluded, or uniquely administered. No other nation gets renamed on wikipedia based on the exceptions of it s subdivisions to this or that subject matter. 03:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Unlike the United States, that the 11:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ::::If the laws are indeed seperate, kindly explain the 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::The Basic Law is not only a law of Hong Kong. It is, especially articles governing relations between Hong Kong and the CPG, or between Hong Kong and the mainland, applied to the entire PRC. — 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ::::(to Instantnood s comment at 11:15, Mar 28, 2005) Please don t lecture me on American Civics and Law. You avoided the point entirely. 15:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::Umm. Hong Kong isn t a native tribeland is it — 15:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) *Oppose As if all the above discussion saying support or object wasn t already a poll ::The times I think it is appropriate to use mainland china are rare. As a native english speaker, I think it sounds like drivel. Everyone in asia uses it however, so it s a valid term. My primary objection is that it is being used to define the PRC by sub-entities (HK and Macau) and other countries (Taiwan). If HK and Macau are the exception to some article or category with PRC in the title (and there are many exceptions), then short explanatory text, with a possible pointer to an article, should explain the exception. And it isn t NPOV, especially the way it is being used by some contributors. The way it is being used by some contributors here is very POV. ::It is also not nearly clear and obvious, for instance, that a Taiwanese person saying mainland isn t including HK and Macau. It is a differentiating term for someone from HK, Macau, or Taiwan and has a definite use in HK, Macau, and Taiwan articles. It has little use in the context of the national PRC, which HK and Macau are part of. 00:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Which Taiwanese person is going to include Hong Kong when he/she says Mainland China This sounds positively bizarre to me. (And I ask any Taiwanese person who knows better to correct me, if I m wrong.) Mainland China (dalu) is a wonderfully natural term perfectly accepted in the Chinese-speaking world.-- ) 00:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) ::::The use in Taiwan says nothing about HK or Macau. The Taiwanese simply use it to exclude the other China from themselves. 01:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::I am not from Taiwan and I did not stay there long enough. But as far as I know they don t call people from Hong Kong and Macao as people from Dàlù . — ::::::I challenge Schmucky to find one Taiwanese person who calls Cantonese-speaking, milktea-drinking, dimsum-munching, English-education-getting Hong Kongers daluren . -- ) 01:19, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) :::::Even the MAC of ROC s Executive Yuan does use different laws or guidelines for mainland China and for Hong Kong and Macao. — 01:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) ::::As a Taiwanese, I feel distant from this topic and thus did not closely follow this discussion. To be honest, I thought HK should be a integral of China after the handover. It did not ever occur to me to make a distinction between Hong Kong and mainland China. However the protest makes me realize that HK is still a united and lively political entity, and also that people still actively pursue their own right and freedom. From my personal point of view, I wouldn t actively make a distinction between HK and mainland China unless the people of HK stress on this distinction and pursue on it. It s only a matter of how people of HK want to portray themselved. ::::That being said, I do not see a reason to degrade the entity PRC/China or to eliminate PRC/China. IMO, I think the distinction between HK and mainland China should only be made when there is such a need. For example, the political system or the economy. But still, these difference could still be described in the China/PRC article under the China/PRC title. I suggest that articles on HK should be kept as separate articles and should be used as the main articles being introduced in these China/PRC articles whenever HK is mentioned. In this setting, there would be a HK articles parallele to the PRC articles and this keeps HK separate but also an integral of China/PRC. Meanwhile, IMO, Instantnood should know that there is no need to remove PRC/China and replace with mainland China, in order to stress the difference between HK and mainland China, if this ever happen to be his goal (not likely though). Without getting the complexed politics involved, HK would always be HK distinct from mainland China, if people choose maintain their heritage. Much like the identity people assumed in Shanghai or Beijing. 02:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::Yes, but what I think should be done (and what I think instantnood is trying to do) is to move articles that are already about mainland China to a title that contains the words, mainland China . A lot of the articles he proposed for moving above already has a disclaimer at the top, saying that the article is only about mainland China, and that there are other articles focusing on Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. What I think is: if it s about mainland China, then why not name it that way -- ) 04:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) ::::::I see what you mean. Perhaps it is Instantnood s argument as well. Hmm..... I think this argument is also what concerns other contributers. Since similiar articles in other contries were about a state or nation, the proposed move would create a situation where a geographical entity, mainland China here, be called as a nation. In stead, mainland China is actually large portion of the China/PRC. I guess the proposed move would be justified unless there are plans to broaden the scope of those articles by some minor edits to cover non-mainland China territories and make the article covering a state. This is only a question whether people think they should have articles on the state or articles on the area but not the state. Since it is not my country, I am not in a position to make comment. However, I would lean toward the proposal if there is no grand design to change the contents of these article. Meanwhile, an article with XXX of China would also be throny since we have no idea or consensus on what that China is, politically or geographically. Perhaps mainland China would still be a better choice over China if PRC is not used. I understand how frustrated it could be since the definition of China is contineously affected by the opinion from outside of mainland China. But, I hope people would understand it as it is the by product of the NPOV process, and this is exactly the reason why PRC is favored than China in most cases. 04:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::Having ) 05:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::I am absolutely fine with mainland China. I only have some hesitation when we do not have a article on the economy of PRC. I would support have an artilce on a territory. However, if I am a reader, I would expect to search for article on an state. I think XXX on mainland China is fine. I just wonder what would you guys do about the question: should an aritcle on PRC also be created or should the title be redirected to mainland. 05:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::::Either redirect or disambiguation would do. — 12:30, mar 27 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::Redirect from where to where Why not XXX of the Mainland to XXX of the PRC ;) -- 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::Why XXX of mainland China to XXX of the PRC then — 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::Because the PRC is larger than Mainland China-- 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::(to Ran s comment at 05:51, Mar 26, 2005) Notice in all the above examples, only Mainland China is a geographical entity which is not commonly treated as a country. Wikipedia must be the pioneer in that exercise.-- 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::::May I ask whose interests is the PRC delegations to the WTO representing May I know why PRC statistics agency compiles population figures that do not include the two SARs — 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::Again you missed the point. Did the PRC delegations attent the WTO under the name Mainland China Do they report their population figures under the name Mainland China You seem to keep barking up the wrong tree-- 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::To repeat myself, whose interests is the PRC delegations representing Do the statistics of the PRC (as a WTO member) on WTO website and publications include Hong Kong and Macao — 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ::::::(to Ran s comment at 04:30, Mar 26, 2005) You might wish to click on 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::While the matter is not settled and there is no guideline or convention that we have to stick to, is there nothing wrong for me to edit or to create new pages according to one of the versions in dispute If I were accomplishing my aims, then what about those who kept reverting — 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::My aim is to stop your nonsence, and to respect the processes and procedures of this website when it comes to dispute resolution, if that is not clear enough. What is your aim in comparison-- 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::::It s not for you or me to tell who s nonsense. — 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) :::::(to Mababa s comment at 02:34, 26 Mar 2005) Mababa, what you have come to think is more or less reflective of my concerns. I am glad you are beginning to understand my point, although I would be less hesitant to assume he does have a goal to enforce the differences between the two SARs and that of Mainland China. His actions and perseverance speaks alot.-- 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::Excuse me for saying what you have been doing is downplaying the differences between the two SARs and mainland China. — 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) :::::::Thanks for comments from 05:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::That s very true. But then, to repeat myself, at the time being I can agree with either redirect or disambiguation. — 11:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) :::::::::Very well put indeed. To put it abit more harshly (sorry, but my patience has been worn quite thin with this fella here), I dont see why this site should become the target of people with an inferiority complex. The failure to recognise his lack of NPOV when it comes to highlighting differences between the two SARS and that of the rest of China at the expense of everything else is a kind of attitude I would consider dangerous to this site.-- 12:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::What a nice way to attack. When people are talking about the facts that she/he might not know very well, she/he considered people are highlighting, and are therefore lack of NPOV. — 13:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) *Support in general, but there are some cases that are less clear. The term Mainland China is not meaningless; in fact, it may be one of the few terms that people from Hong Kong, Taibei, Beijing, etc. all agree on. (I m also in favor of writing it as Mainland China , with a capital M, to make it clear that it is a fairly precise technical term.) Let s try to split this along the (one country), several systems line: if there are several systems involved (e.g. economies), Mainland China can be used accurately and appropriately ( 01:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) **I spell with a lowercase m by following the rule of some newspapers, such as SCMP and Financial Times. In my opinion the ministry should be categorised under 02:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) ***In addition to SCMP and Financial Times, TIME, CBC, BBC and CNN as well. — 10:16, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) **(to MarkSweep s comment at 01:59, 25 Mar 2005) Clearly both are not satisfactory, and it is obvious we cannot possibly have one set of poll results to dictate the usage of either term for ALL categories. This, ran has apparantly mentioned above in this page, and Intantnood seems to have agreed on too-- 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) ***Exactly. — 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Support I ve been away for the past several days so basically everything that needs to be said has already been said, but I would like to put in my vote for support. Anyway, I essentially agree with Ran s, MarkSweep s, and Mababa s positions. The use of the term Mainland China does not automatically imply that the other entities are on an equal political footing. It s an extremely useful term that is even used by the PRC itself in order to differentiate itself from Hong Kong, Macau, and ROC/Taiwan. But as others have indicated, care should be used to make sure each of the proposed moves are of articles which actually make this differentiation. As for assertions from SchmuckyTheCat that the term is not used by people outside of Asia, that is false. I grew up and live in the U.S. and have known that term for as long as I can remember. The media here uses it as well. -- 06:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Important: Please see the Basics section 01:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

If there is no strong opposition over the coming 5 days, I guess we shall proceed to have polls for each case like what is now doing for 10:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have started the polls at 12:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

==Non-poll==

(08:43, 31 Mar 2005)

Any votes here aren t really votes. They re non-votes. This is a non-poll.

Those of us who like the terminology suggested by Instantnood

# 08:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) # 10:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) (well, should I add my name here ) # #

Those of us who do not like the terminology not used by Instantnood

# #

= NPOv: China, Mainland China, PRC, ROC, SAR, etc. =

( 03:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)) A lot has been discussed here previously about NPOV. I think most people who have discussed NPOV previously have very valid ideas and proposals. Some movement was made about updating the naming conventions in February but it did not go forward to actually change what is there now. Since then several very disputed rename proposals occurred with the justification that the renames were aligned with the naming conventions.

We ve got so much confusion in article layout and terminology that readers are confused. We can t come to concensus because everyone believes their views are being excluded. Minor edits are turning into flame wars. The term China has been cut up and re-named to so many different things that nobody can agree on what the generic term can mean. The current terminology is so NPOV about Hong Kong and Taiwan that it is extremely POV about the PRC.

If we all recognize that the PRC is not homogenous and allow terms like China to be broad and encompassing, we can stop having so many arguments, needless renames and category pigeonholing. This means the main articles may need some text about terminology and it certainly means minor articles need to place the terms in the correct context.

I think concensus could be reached on the following statements (my examples may or may not exist):

1. China and Chinese means the entire geographical entity, including the PRC, Taiwan (ROC), Hong Kong, the autonomous regions, and in a purely historical context other areas as well.

2. China and Chinese is an acceptable but not preferred, term when referring to the People s Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the name China (such as Economy of China ) can mention what it does not refer to (such as Taiwan or Macau) with a short text and link inside the article. Even better is a specific article for the other entity. Linking articles should provide the reader, by context, the NPOV of whether the linking article is about the PRC or something else. We should not rename articles from China to mainland China or to the People s Republic of China simply because of a naming convention.

3. Taiwan is an acceptable, but not preferred, term when referring to Taiwan or the Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the only the term Taiwan or ROC (such as ROC controlled islands) should explain it s context in the article. We do not need to rename articles to Republic of China simply because of a naming convention.

4. The primary articles on China and the People s Republic of China should mention that neither China nor the PRC is homogenous in laws, language, custom, etc. The extremely loose federated system for provincial control in the PRC allows a wide variety of systems to be practiced. Individual articles should detail how things are different.

5. The primary article on China should contain a short section titled Mainland China . This short section should link to the main article Mainland China . Most articles should link to China#Mainland China and not Mainland China . The term mainland China is POV dependent and might mean several things, thus, it is up to the linking article to maintain context if it links to that term.

6. There is no entity called mainland China . Unless necessary, articles and categories should not be titled with it. Articles categorized with China or the People s Republic of China that have some unique situation that differentiates them from the main body of China should list that situation in their own articles.

7. Hong Kong and Macau are part of the People s Republic of China. They are also special. They should not be categorized or treated as seperate from China. Articles about Hong Kong and Macau have the responsibility to state why and how they are different from the People s Republic of China, not vice versa. The differentness of HK and Macau shouldn t be used to rename other Chinese entities.

==Reasoning:==

These are my reasons for approving the above statements. Your reasons might differ even if you also agree with the statements. To come to concensus, do not focus on my reasons. Come to your own conclusions and see if minor changes to your own POV or the statements above could bring you onboard to concensus.

My opinion on statement 2. Some have said that by letting China refer to the PRC that it is NPOV towards Taiwan/ROC, which still has a marginal number of people wishing to control all of China. And/or that Taiwan is also Chinese and that the term China (referring to the PRC) excludes Taiwan. This is not the case at all!

First, Wikipedia recognizes the status quo to the political situation. The status quo is that Taiwan does not control the geographical entity called China. It is NPOV to allow China to refer to the PRC in most contexts.

Second, the terms China and Chinese does not exclude Taiwan anymoreso than it excludes ex-patriate Chinese living in Brazil, or native HK residents who fled to Canada, or Americans whose relatives emigrated four generations ago. Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese. Third, it is strongly POV to allow these other entities (Taiwan, HK, etc) to define what China is and is not. The situations in Taiwan and HK need to be addressed in articles about Taiwan and HK. Fourth, we must take into account the intention of the thousands of other articles that sloppily link to China . We aren t giving the PRC exclusive rights to the name China, but we are acknowleding and accomodating common use.

My opinion on Statement 3. Republic of China is what the government there prefers. We should respect that. However, insisting that Republic of China is more accurate or less POV than Taiwan is as POV as anything else. Some Taiwanese prefer Taiwan, some prefer ROC, some probably prefer Formosa or Chinese Taipei. The meaning of Taiwan geographically is one thing, but in our global culture, the word Taiwan has expanded to mean the political entity, the language, and the unique culture that has sprung up there. We should encourage broad and encompassing terms. We don t need to rename articles (unless there is a naming conflict, of course) if we can have more explanatory text in the articles.

My opinion on statement 4, 5, 6. This is a huge problem. Mainland China is being used as a substitute, and using the current naming conventions to justify it, for the People s Republic of China. This is horribly POV for Taiwan and HK centric articles (and wiki users) to be defining the PRC with such a term. The term defines what mainland China is not, but can t define what it is because what it is is context dependent. From Taiwan, mainland China is every part of China that isn t Taiwan. From Hong Kong, mainland China is all of China except the SAR.

It is unjustifiable for an article like Laws of the People s Republic of China to be in a category called Mainland China but not the category People s Republic of China simply because an HK centric user feels like the PRC term is exclusive of Hong Kongs special status, even though HK is clearly part of the PRC. An article Laws of Hong Kong is good. Renaming an article from Laws of the PRC to Laws of Mainland China based on the specialness of HK is horrible POV and horrible style - but that is what is happening.

Most links to Mainland China aren t meant to be links to an article defining an informal term, they do mean to refer to a subset of China. Which is why they should link to the term as a placeholder (China#Mainland) within the article that most readers actually want to read.

My opinion on statement 7. This has been a point of contention lately. The differentness of HK and Macau have been used to redefine terms that have nothing to do with HK and Macau in articles that don t refer to HK or Macau. Again, HK is not Shenzen is not Beijing is not Tibet. Many areas of China have unique situations, laws and culture. It would be an impossible task to edit all articles on China to explain how the concept differs in each province, AR, SEZ, or SAR.

Additionally, the specialness of HK and Macau have been used to justify HK and Macau as seperate, even equal, entities to the PRC. The two SAR, of course, have many fundamental differences with the PRC. Those differences should be explained, not seperated.

---

Again, these things are fixed by everyone recognizing that China is not homogenous. Laws, economics, food, language, (even the concept of sovereignty!) are all different across China. Beijing is not Shenzen is not Hong Kong is not Tibet. By making it clear to the reader that China is not homogenous and providing links we encourage readers to explore and learn. Or, we can continue to focus on our current efforts and fighting about minor categories, in which case we have lost the big picture and also confused our readers.

==Discussion on #Political NPOV==

===Statement 1.===

China and Chinese means the entire geographical entity, including the PRC, Taiwan (ROC), Hong Kong, the autonomous regions, and in a purely historical context other areas as well.

(Reconsidered... see below) Agree -- China is often used to refer to the entire geographical entity and there is no problem with that. -- 07:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Umofomia is clearly speaking form a mainland China POV. You can even take a look at his user bio. Clearly biased. ::Please sign your comment. A contributor from Taiwan can be equally familier with all those issues.

:: Disagree. Haha... that s funny that someone would accuse me of having a mainland POV... most people generally would consider me having quite the opposite, but I try to hide that here in order to be as NPOV as possible. Anyway, it was in that spirit that I had initially agreed with this statement, thinking it was a rather neutral statement, but after looking at what everyone else had said and thinking it through again, I will have to reconsider, especially given the light that defining geographical China is rather subjective in itself. I ve been away for the past several days so it took a while for me to catch up with everything that has happened and follow-up on this. -- 05:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disagreed China is China and Taiwan is Taiwan. China should not include Taiwan. Although China considers Taiwan to be a rogue territory, Taiwan has its own currency, flag, Olympic team, embasies in foreign countries, delegates to the World Trade Organization, military, etc. Taiwan s statistics are calculated separately from China, including but not limited to: population data, economic data as in GDP, demographic data, etc. CIA factbook even goes further and lists Taiwan as a separate country altogether.

Disagreed--If China as a geographical entity includes Taiwan based on history, please also include Mongolia, Korea and Vietnam. If Taiwan is included into China due to Culture, please include Singapore which shared the Chinese culture with a majority Chinese ethnic population exits in that country. Please also remember, before 1945, Taiwanese residents read and write in Japanese. Culture export is not a reason to include other area into a reagion; or half of the world belongs to north america. If China as a geographical entity includes Taiwan is based on political system, that is a POV. The 08:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Reconsidered... see above) The articles dealing with Chinese history and culture do mention areas that were under Chinese control or influence historically, including the ones you mentioned, so I don t see any problem with that. This geographical area has grown and shrunk with time and the articles on Chinese history make adequate explanations of where Chinese influence extended. I think it s useful that we can use the words China and Chinese to separate themselves from the political entities, so that we don t have to claim who has sovereignty over what. I think using PRC=China is actually rather the opposite of what you claim, since it explicitly endorses that the ROC does not exist, which is a POV statement. -- 08:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slightly disagree. China as a geographical entity has disputed borders. Independence supporters would like to think that Taiwan is not part of China, geographic or otherwise. The term Chinese (if considered to be on par with 中華/華人 etc) can be used to refer to Taiwan, but should be avoided where possible. Politically, for the sake of listing, both the PRC and ROC can go under China , but we can t define the ROC as the same as Taiwan in a geographical context.-- 09:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Reconsidered... see above) I don t think geographical entities can have disputed borders since it s all based on where influence extends to. It s the political entity that has disputed borders. A piece of land may be claimed politically by another state, but if there is Chinese influence over it, then I don t see a problem of having fall under the geographical entity. In addition, I m not sure the about your assertion concerning Taiwanese independence supporters. Other than probably the radical fringes, they still agree that Taiwan falls under the geographical entity of China. It s the political region that they claim is not part of the political region of the PRC. There is a difference, and we should not confuse the two concepts. -- 09:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

***Umofomia, that s incorrect! Taiwan does not fall under the geographical entity of mainland China. That s why there s such a push for 2 terms - mainland China and Taiwan ; clearly separate with different geographical boundaries. *Comment: Wikipedia has to stay NPOV. Geographically Wikipedia has to be careful in dealing with saying Taiwan is part of China the geographical region. See also my comment 10:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC) *Comment I would like to urge Umofomia to glance over the statement (1) again. A geographical area is always an are with physical boundaries. The geographical area which has grown and shrunk as you proposed is actually the political entity of China and thus does not seem to comform with the common concept for a geographical area. The suggested definition of geographical China using the influence of China(a political entity) as a criteria defining the boarder is undoubtly subjective to one s political point of view and thus is POV by nature. I am not even sure what the criteria, the so called influence , is. And it makes me wonder why Iraq is not part of geographical US. Looking at the 5000 years of the Chinese history, I do not see why Taiwan has the privilege to be part of China whereas Korea, mongolia and Vietnam do not. As Jiang and Instantnood pointed out, a significant portion of Taiwnese do not like the idea to be considered as part of China, even geographically; and Wikipedia has the responsibility to make its content neutral. IMO, defining Taiwan to be part of the geographical China is not neutral. Last but not the least, tagging people with the radical label is certainly not neutral either. There is a Taiwan strait, a 05:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) **Out of all these places with Chinese cultural influence, such as Vietnam, Korea, and exclaves in North America and Europe, Taiwan is the only place fulfilling all of the following: i) with a population of Chinese descent majority, ii) has been ruled directly by China in some part of history (from the end of 10:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC) ***i)is disputable. There are arguments against Chinese immigration. Your statement could be true and could be untrue. Meanwhile, Singapore has a majority of Chinese people too. Please consider take Singapore into geographical China. ii)This argument is based on political POV. This arguement is not neutral. I believe Vietnam was once a province of China as well. They used to read and write in Chinese too. iii) what is that argument Taiwan, just like Korea has been ruled by Japan. Chinese culture was interrupted and eliminated to certain extent so that people can not speak chinese. Lastly, why these criteria Is it because that they fits Taiwan from some position Or perhaps we can make some other criteria to pull Monglia and Korea into China later after we put Taiwan into China A geographical entity, in common sense, has a physical boarder. To call Taiwan part of China, geographically is a political POV. To call mainland China as geographical China on the other hand is neutral to the most of the people. I would like to see some criteria based on some simple understandale standard, not convoluted indirect and untenable arguments. Or perhaps you would like to see HK to be pulled out of geographical China since HK currently is not directly controlled by PRC according to your criteria ii 05:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) **Umm. Taiwan is the only place that fulfils all the three criteria. Korea and Singapore do not. — 08:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) ***Bogus. I have already told you that Taiwan does not fit all the three criteria. Korea is the authentic one really fit your three criteria. 汉朝征服朝鲜，把朝鲜变成了汉朝的四个郡。[http://cul.news.sina.com.cn/t/2004-10-26/89502.html] Please show me your consistency to persuade Korean people to joint China, geographically. Meanwhile you can start to think of making up other criteira which makes Singapore only fits and not the others to include Singapore into China, geographically. How about i)a major Chinese population emphasizing Chinese heritage ii)national leader speaks mandarin iii)Grows black-colored hair-- 01:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) ****Taiwan is the only example the fulfil all the three criteria at the same time, that is, continguous from Chinese culture geographically, not separate by another culture (as oppose to Singapore, Chinatowns in Toronto, Vancouver, etc.), with a Han Chinese descent majority (as oppose to Korea, Vietnam), and rule by China in some part of history (as oppose to Singapore). — 07:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) *****I am not certain if I have got what you mean. I gave you my reasoning and you just repeated your sentence. I hope I am not communicating with a robot. Perhaps you can help me understanding your justification if you can give me evidence against Vietman and Korea for fitting the three criteria you proposed. What s more important, I have told you that these three criteria you suggested is arbituary invented by your very own self and does not bear any standing. You can changed your criteira into something else to fit any country: Japan, India, Russia or even Africa. Let me help you to include 05:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) ****Yepp. It s my own criteria. Taiwan is the only case which all three criteria are met. Korea and Vietnam doesn t fit because their population is not Han majority. Singapore doesn t fit because it is separate by cultures. — 12:30, mar 27 2005 (UTC) ****Strange arguement. Who tells you that Taiwanese are Han They are mostly aborigines.[http://www.taiwannation.com.tw/topic015.htm] I told you already that your arguement is just one of the Chinese POV and is not necessarily fact. It does not meet the standard to be called truth. It is frustrating to see you stubbornly insist on your own interpretation and that you were not capable to acknowledge the difference between your knowledge and my previous arguement.据《史记》记载，殷纣王昏庸无道，他的叔父箕子一气之下，远走朝鲜，建立国家。在《汉书》中也这样写道：秦汉更迭时期，数万名燕人避战乱进入朝鲜。其中一个叫卫满的燕人头目赶走了箕子的后代，建立了卫氏朝鲜。汉朝征服朝鲜，把朝鲜变成了汉朝的四个郡[http://cul.news.sina.com.cn/t/2004-10-26/89502.html]According to historical records, both 箕子,卫满 were all Han Chinese. Please prove me that they are genetically different from Han; otherwise, please stand up and go to article 01:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) *****Genetically speaking Vietnamese and Koreans are not Hans, although they re mongoloid. Taiwanese are mostly descendant of Hans for Fukien/Fujian. I m looking for studies such as Y-chromosome or mitochonria DNA to further on this. [http://www.taahouston.org/site1999/taa_news/0110_news.htm#科技醫學] [http://www.oxfordancestors.com/papers/mtDNA02%20LimbsTwigs.pdf] [http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/10/1737] These researches or articles reveal a little bit.Furthermore, Korean and Vietnamese languages are not Sino-Tibetan, but Taiwanese. — 11:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ******All of your evidence acts against what you claimed. Please read them yourself. 18:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) *******The first one is against. The second and the third one are not (well, if I didn t misread). — 06:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) ********I think what is more important for us is that we should both acknowledge our POV and difference. I have not closely read the paper you cited. However, I thought they only showed the difference between the Korean/Japanese with Han Chinese. However, this does not prove they are a different race from Han Chinese. Also, I wonder if they see a difference between Taiwanese from the southeast asian. Most likely, this paper would also suffer from not distinguishing Taiwanese mainlander with native Taiwanese when they took the samples from Taiwanese residents. On the other hand, this paper[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgicmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11285126] would provide a different view point. I think this debate should be ended here, once we have acknowledged our different POV, I hope you would agree :) 02:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) *********Right. It s nice to talk with you Mababa.

— 05:56, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) **********It s been a very enlightening conversation. I was actually wondering what s in that paper which you cited quite some time ago. I really enjoyed it. :) 21:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) *********Yes. And I know something new that I didn t know before. — 10:53, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) **Mababa: regardless of your political opinions, which I respect, please take into account that there are approximately one billion people in the world who would consider Taiwan to be a part of China in every sense of the word. In the spirit of NPOV, I don t agree with your proposal that geographical China = mainland China . -- ) 02:13, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) **Ran, nice to talk with you again. :) I am very awared of that position, which I respect as well, and I actually have no intention to make my own policy. Yes, in the spirit of NPOV, we should not take the position mainland China=geographical China, nor should we consider Taiwan to be a part of China either for the very same reason. 02:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) ***Hi Mababa ;), I agree with you, that would also be POV. That s why I proposed a rewrite of the intro of the ) 04:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) ****Yep Yep... :) I have just read your new proposal. I think that is wonderful! Brilliant! I really like it. 05:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Disagree. Ref Jiang. -- 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Disagree. China is a term subject to POV. To different people, it can refer to either their favourite Chinese government (PRC or ROC) or a sum of governments (PRC + ROC, if not Mongolia). Its territorial extent is also a subject of great dispute. As such China should not be described as any more than a term subject to POV. -- ) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) *Comment: I think our current policy of describing China as a geographical entity is problematic: isn t that just one POV among many too -- ) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) **I think it is problematic when the term is perfusely used to refer to a state in the real world; but I have no good remedy for this. The corollary proposal for this change is to redefine the term Taiwan. The current policy of describing Taiwan as a geographical entity is also merely one POV among many too. (I do not expect to recieve a robotic response telling me Taiwan is a geographical entity.)-- 06:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) ***The current treatment of residing the government article at 06:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) **I also agree with Ran in that we should not describe China as a geographical entity . In fact, I thought we had consensus on the 23rd until the reversion war over the weekend when some people started reverting the change back to pre-discussion text.-- 15:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===Statement 2.===

China and Chinese is an acceptable but not preferred, term when referring to the People s Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the name China (such as Economy of China ) can mention what it does not refer to (such as Taiwan or Macau) with a short text and link inside the article. Even better is a specific article for the other entity. Linking articles should provide the reader, by context, the NPOV of whether the linking article is about the PRC or something else. We should not rename articles from China to mainland China or to the People s Republic of China simply because of a naming convention.

Hesitantly Agree -- Although the term China is often used to refer to the PRC only, it does do the reader a disservice by not adequately making it be known that there are political implications behind it. I would support it if a statement at the top of each article named xxx of China specifically states that it refers to the PRC and not to the ROC, et al. We should even make this statement a template so that it s consistent across all articles. -- 08:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Generally disagree. China is not acceptable when referring to the People s Republic of China because it either implies Taiwan is not part of China or is renegade. Neither is NPOV. I will take issue if people move away from the current naming, but I won t be deliberatly moving articles like economy of China as part of an established series of articles. -- 09:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

**Responses to reasoning given above: Taiwan does not control the geographical entity called China is POV and inaccurate because this implies that Taiwan is not part of the geographical entity of China. Having a marginal number of people wishing to control all of China is not relevant since as long as we see Taiwan as part of China, then China is divided. This is the state of affairs we are dealing with, not what things should be. Thereofore it is still POV to equate China=PRC. Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese cannot neutrally apply, especially if China=PRC because that means Taiwan is part of PRC. Overseas Chinese are not part of China... Regarding the statement, it is strongly POV to allow these other entities (Taiwan, HK, etc) to define what China is and is not. we did not allow these entities to define China. Instead, we are looking at the current state of affairs from an objective standpoint. We are not using the same terms Taiwan or HK is using. We aren t giving the PRC exclusive rights to the name China, but we are acknowleding and accomodating common use. Common use is POV and since this is in English, western-centric. Westerners are mostly ignorant of the situation. -- 09:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) **Comments: First, Wikipedia do not see Taiwan as part of China, then China is divided . This position is a POV. In my opinion and also many other s position, Taiwan is NOT part of China, politically or geographically. This is the affairs between two states we are dealing with, not what things should be. Secondly, the statement Taiwan/ROC is undeniably Chinese is such a strong POV that I do not understand how could anyone see it as neutral. ROC may be Chinese due to its historical root, Taiwan definitely is not. If Taiwan is Chinese, then the whole 04:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) ***Exactly. Wikipedia should not show any inclination on whether Taiwan is or is not part of China (China here does not mean the PRC). Taking either side is already not NPOV. Everybody s view should be respected, but that does not mean it has to satisfy both sides or arguments. Nonetheless for disambiguation purposes sometimes slight implications of Taiwan being part of China is unavoidable, such as companies and airlines that many still bear the name China/Chinese/Chunghwa, and languauges and culture. Such way of presentation is merely for letting information flows more smoothly without barriers. It does not imply Taiwan is or is not part of China. — 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) *Strongly disagree. China does not equal to PRC , or the other way round. It is already a POV to say it s acceptable thought not preferable . The rest of the problem is already solved by redirects, disambiguations and notices. See also my comment 10:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC) *Disagree in general. However, in a long article about the PRC, Chinese may be Ok as an abbreviated form when it s clear from context what is meant. -- 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) **I can accept it as a reader, but not as an editor. — 10:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC) *Agreed-- 04:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Disagree. This is an NPOV way to do things. We should be using NPOV terms that everyone agrees with, such as Mainland China , as much as we can. -- ) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) *Agreed. Saying mainland China implies the POV that Taiwan is a part of China. Using China with the clarification that it does not cover Taiwan or Hong Kong would be just fine. Using PRC unfortunately is quite inappropriate when not dealing with politics.-- 03:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) **What do you call the part of the PRC without Hong Kong or Macau -- ) 05:18, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

===Statement 3.===

Taiwan is an acceptable, but not preferred, term when referring to Taiwan or the Republic of China. An article that might be confusing with the only the term Taiwan or ROC (such as ROC controlled islands) should explain it s context in the article. We do not need to rename articles to Republic of China simply because of a naming convention.

Hesitantly Agree -- it probably is a little silly renaming every article to xxx of the Republic of China and that most people would not readily know that the ROC refers to Taiwan, since many are ignorant of Chinese history. However, using Taiwan for the ROC also does the reader a disservice like I explain for statement 2. Again, perhaps we can have a templated statement at the top of any article named xxx of Taiwan. -- 08:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Agreed--And I provide fresh-the-ink-has-yet-to-dry sources from the best (WP) and the most respected (NYT) papers in the US:1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64569-2005Mar24.html2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61389-2005Mar23.html3) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/international/asia/26cnd-taiwan.html4) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/international/asia/23embargo.htmlI realize these are contentious political articles, but I am just pointing to the usage of the words Taiwan and Republic of China (Taiwan). Don t shoot the messenger, just look at how he uses words!-- 22:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) **Articles on newspapers are for average readers, not for encyclopedia purpose. — 12:30, mar 27 2005 (UTC) ***Instantnood holds an inconsistent position. See his comments on mainland China below. We should not ignore common usage, and you need a very good reason for defying it.-- 17:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) ****I m not saying common usage can be ignored. But by equating NPOV and accuracy, it s much more appropriate to reside the article on the state/government/regime of the ROC at 19:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) *Agreed--The more inclusive the definition is, the more neutral the articles would be. Specifically rejecting the western common usage is surely a POV, with the caveat that usage may or may not be fact. 08:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Somewhat disagree. This is among the most contenous points in Taiwanese politics: see[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/13/content_382036.htm this] and [http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2004/10/12/2003206535 this]. There are some contexts where Republic of China is obivously appropriate eg flag of the Republic of China while other contexts where it is not Mountains in the Republic of China . Use political terms for political topics and non-political terms from non-political topics. It just can t be defined as clear cut as no. 3--Jiang **Hey Jiang. It s not Taiwanese politics, but ROC politics or cross-strait politics. By the way, there are some hills or peaks outside of Taiwan, am I right Should it be done according to the current treatment to 10:21, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC) *Strongly disagree. Taiwan does not equal to ROC , or the other way round. It is already a POV to say it s acceptable thought not preferable . The rest of the problem is already solved by redirects, disambiguations and notices. See also my comment 10:05, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC) *Disagree. The current conventions are just fine. -- 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Agreed Taiwan can be called Taiwan without referring to Taiwan ROC. The current page lists Taiwan as island then points people to ROC. *Partially agree. I agree that a disclaimer needs to be inserted into the article s text especially when it is apparantly not clear to most of our audiences concerning the whole Taiwan and ROC terminology issue. Where needed, articles which are deemed to be more appriopriate to use one term should have the other term created and redirected to it. I would, however, feel it is indeed neccesary to rename some articles because they become factually inaccurate when taking into account the differing technical definitions.-- 03:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Agree Taiwan page should state Taiwan instead of Taiwan the geographical island. Anytime you search for Taiwan, it pulls up information on Taiwan the nation, not the physcial island. http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/searchp=Taiwan&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt **This is already a POV, although it;s prevalent. And please sign your comment. — 16:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) *Somewhat agree. It seems that people here on Wikipedia have developed an allergy to the term Taiwan , causing them to use it as little as possible. :) But have you noticed how, regardless of belief or opinion, everyone seems to agree what Taiwan refers to A Taiwanese independence advocate would say, Quemoy is controlled by the Nation of Taiwan. A Mainlander would say, Quemoy is occupied by the military of Taiwan. But regardless of whether it s a nation or whatever, everyone agrees that Taiwan refers to the government and extent of the Republic of China! -- ) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) **There s no political entity called Taiwan yet. The fact is, the act of renaming the entity is currently seen as a move towards independence. This is why that I cannot agree with your argument, Ran. The political entity, as well as the passport issued by the government, is still Republic of China . True, they ve been trying to put Taiwan along with it. But the PRC government pressed other countries to trouble those who have Taiwan on the cover of their passports. Until the government located on the island of Taiwan changes its name and announce it, I will NOT accept the argument that Taiwan=ROC. 13:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) ***But is the term Republic of China any better The PRC has not recognized the legitimacy of this term since 1949. Most countries have not since the 1970 s. PRC refers to the ROC as the Taiwan Authority . The ROC joins international organizations as Chinese Taipei . If Taiwan is not NPOV, ROC isn t particularly better. -- ) 16:09, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) ****I second that point. The PRC POV is inconsistent. I don t think we can trust it to say that there is more than one POV.-- 22:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===Statement 4.===

The primary articles on China and the People s Republic of China should mention that neither China nor the PRC is homogenous in laws, language, custom, etc. The extremely loose federated system for provincial control in the PRC allows a wide variety of systems to be practiced. Individual articles should detail how things are different.

Comment -- I don t exactly know what you mean here. In my opinion, the main article on China is fine as it is since it talks about things under the geographic and historical definition of China. The main article on the PRC is fine as well since it talks about the political entity. -- 08:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Comment: China is not a loosely federated State. Laws, customs, immigration, demographcs, economy, etc., are the business of mainland authorities. The articles on these topics do not deal with Hong Kong and Macao. See also my comment 10:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC) *Agree that neither the PRC nor Taiwan (nor China by anyone s definition) is culturally, linguistically, or ethnically homogeneous. But the PRC is, at least de iure , not an extremely loose federated system . -- 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Comment. The PRC is not homogeneous.... but that heterogeneity applies to only a few million people out of what, 1.3 billion -- ) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) *Agreed. Well, I would say that the politics of the PRC is interesting because on the one hand, they are authoritarian and can effect some policies very quickly that would be impossible to do in a democracy like the US, such as crushing the Falun Gong movement. On the other hand, they do not seem centralized when it comes to other policies like shutting down state industries (a lot of objections from different parts of the gov t). Cultural heterogeneity I think it s true, they are quite different. Just consider the number of languages they have. That s not a characteristic of Western Hemisphere countries and many other countries in the Eastern Hemisphere as well. If though by political heterogeneity you mean Taiwan is a part of China, then I completely disagree.-- 22:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Comment: Chinese culture is remarkably heterogeneous but homogeneity, ever since Qinshihuang created the first China by uniting several states (please don t call it unifying China because that implies China existed prior to the unification) the rulers of China have constantly attempted to enforce cultural homogeneity for political purposes. This is reflected in the attempt to call the Chinese family of languages dialects (they are mutually unintelligible and linguistics would mostly disagree with this common usage). Taiwan I could see as being part of a greater Chinese culture the way that there is a greater Latin American/Spanish culture. But this has nothing to do with politics.-- 22:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) **IMO, calling languages dialects is just a matter of translation. There s very few, if not no, European languages sharing the same writing standard, which the writing standard is mutually intelligible, while the spoken variants are not. Chinese writing system is standardised, and that s Chinese call it yǔyán (in Pinyin). The spoken variants are therefore subordinate to it, and are called fāngyán. When they got translated language and dialect seem to be the right words, tho it is not in terms of accuracy. — 12:30, mar 27 2005 (UTC) ***I m aware that it is misleading in Chinese as well as creating a fiction of cultural unity is important domestically, probably more so, than internationally! In any case, there is one writing standard, but this standard is of Mandarin, not really of local dialects. You should be well aware of that being that you are knowledgeable of Hong Kong. For those that know standard written Chinese, but whose native Chinese language is not Mandarin, they have to spend quite a bit of time to learn it in school and consciously deviate from their own native language. You misunderstand the relationship between spoken and written language. The existences of Cantonese and more and more so Taiwanese written standards is proof that they are not the same thing.-- 17:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) ****Standard Mandarin or Putonghua not the same as 19:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) *****You still have not made any worthwhile points. When non-Mandarin speaking people read a passage written in Chinese, they use their own local language s pronounciation to read it out. But you could not say that one could talk in one s own dialect using the syntax and grammar and diction of written Chinese. So what if you use local pronounciations It s still not the way you would normally talk. You still have not responded to the political motivations of calling it a dialect either. For one serious linguistic who has studied this, one of the most respected Sinologists from the west, I recommend that you read John DeFrancis. Don t give me any crap about how Chinese is not his native language. If anything, he knows ten times more about Chinese than the ordinary native.-- 08:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) ******I agree the spoken variants are languages, and I myself call them languages, but not dialects, in English. But still in Chinese they are fangyan not yuyan . The Chinese family of languages is thought by their speakers to be closer than other families of languages. because they share the same writing standard. And that s the reason why Chinese people use the vocabulary fangyan to refer to the language family. Bear in mind that modern written Chinese is a relatively recent invention, with respect to China s long history. Prior to it, the 16:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) *******Really now, you sound really repetitive. I ve already told you that the reason it s called fangyan is for political reasons. Again you did not respond. Again, I tell you that they share a single writing standard that corresponds to a spoken language that is not any local Chinese language, but is closest to standard Mandarin. No written language is ever the same as the spoken language (and this is obvious so I m not sure what your point is). It is obviously closely related to standard Mandarin and though, again, you could use for example, a Shanghainese pronounciation for reading standard Mandarin 1) it sounds extremely abnormal 2) today, everyone in China is taught Mandarin so no one would do that 3) innovations in Shanghainese are not normally accepted into the written standard. Do not lecture me about the history of the Chinese language. Make your points, if you have any. *******I have no idea what you re arguing regarding the the somewhat recent innovation of writing in colloquiual spoken standard Mandarin. So you are saying... what That before that, prior to the 20th century 1) You know what the state of Mandarin speaking was back then Very few people spoke Mandarin then. Let s not even talk about how many people were literate. 2) that form of written Chinese did not correspond with ANY spoken Chinese contemporary with it. This is not based on but with some differences. This is radically different from spoken Chinese of the time. So in fact, your point about a single written standard is true only in the sense that it corresponds with NONE of the Chinese languages and where an extremely small percentage can actually read that standard . Seriously, you need to think out what you re saying before you say it. *******Regarding Mandarin and Beijing Chinese--while Beijing Chinese was the basis for standard Mandarin, everyone knows that Beijing Chinese has diverged from standard Mandarin. It s not so much that it s unintelligible, but hey, it s really pushing it at times. I.e. er s everywhere and too much h . Sure, I admit, there are those that feel that Beijingers speak the most accurate Chinese. This is far from the truth. Being the political capital, they perhaps speak Mandarin with the accent of prestige (in this sense it is a real dialect), but it is not true that those characteristics are a part of standard Mandarin. Between the rest of China and Taiwan, there are way too many non-Bejing Mandarin speakers for the Beijing accent to be accepted, and anyways, I would suspect in fact, that Beijing parochialism is what drives the changes, and in fact, they want to be different from standard Mandarin. *******Please also read 07:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ********I do not agree it s called fangyan because of political reason. Among Chinese people it has been long perceived that the single writen standard is a yuyan , and the spoken variants are fangyan . The written standard was classical Chinese or wenyan in the past. Standard Mandarin is more or less a constructed spoken language with the syntax based on the then developing new writing standard, namely modern Chinese or baihua , and the pronunciation based on Beijing dialect of the Mandarin group. *********Instantnood, is that you In any case, Chinese popular terms about their own language are very suspect. Tell me for example how you would translate word into Chinese. If you think about it hard enough, you realize there is no such term. Likewise, I seriously doubt that fangyan came into existence as a ci based on a complex, modern, sophisticated linguistic awareness of languages worldwide and their historical relations. Again, I understand the history of the Chinese written language (though I m no academic expert), so no need to respond to points with condenscending explanations of basic facts. I know where guanhua came from and I know what wenyanwen is. Respond to the above points please.-- 07:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) ********How come I didn t sign my comment Anyways. My position is always the same, that is, calling languages fangyan was not a result of political reasons. — 08:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

===Statement 5.===

The primary article on China should contain a short section titled Mainland China . This short section should link to the main article Mainland China . Most articles should link to China#Mainland China and not Mainland China . The term mainland China is POV dependent and might mean several things, thus, it is up to the linking article to maintain context if it links to that term.

Somewhat Disagree -- I typically don t like linking to subsections of articles since subsections can end up getting renamed or removed. Also, I don t think mainland China is POV at all because it refers to the geographical entity, which also happens to coincide with the areas administered by the PRC excluding HK and Macau. In my opinion, it s on the same level as calling the ROC Taiwan, which you seem to support. -- 08:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree Mainland China means areas under the control of the PRC except HK and Macau in almost all contexts. The ambiguity of the term is being exaggerated by you. It is commonly used in Chinese for neutrality sake. It is the least POV of the terms. PRC and ROC are very much more POV. --

*Strongly disagree. I agree with Umofomia and Jiang. Furthermore 10:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC) *good luck going to an American article and trying to pigeonhole national articles into Category:Lower 48 23:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) **That is a false analogy. The reason why the use of Mainland China is often justified is because there are actually different systems of laws in place with respect to the SARs. If Alaska and Hawaii were deemed special regions as well, then the analogy would apply, but they are not so the analogy doesn t apply. -- 23:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Disagree. The term Mainland China (大陸) is not ambiguous. All sides more or less agree what it refers to, and all parties use it, e.g. the ROC has a Mainland Affairs Council, HK refers to cross-border exchanges with the Mainland, etc. -- 07:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Comment. Can anyone confirm without all doubt that when the Taiwanese use the term Mainland China , they are always excluding the two SARs, and not the government based in Beijing Secondly, can anyone also confirm, that all overseas Chinese around the World, including in Singapore where I come from, also use the term Mainland China in the same way-- 03:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) **A search on Google on the [http://www.google.com.sg/searchhl=en&q=%22mainland+China%22+%22Hong+Kong%22+site%3Astraitstimes.asia1.com.sg&meta= Strait Times] and [http://www.google.com.sg/searchhl=en&q=%22%E5%A4%A7%E9%99%B8%22+%22%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%22+site%3Azaobao.com&meta= Lianhe Zaobao (大陸)]/[http://www.google.com.sg/searchhl=en&q=%22%E5%85%A7%E5%9C%B0%22+%22%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%22+site%3Azaobao.com+-special+-hk97&meta= (內地)] already tells. — 09:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) ***Yeah, and I suppose you didnt notice they almost always refer to the term Mainland China because they are talking about Hong Kong in the same sentence That still isnt a demonstration of how Singaporeans would use the term Mainland China when not talking about Hong Kong or Taiwan. And btw, Its interesting that newspapers are being used as representative of usage on the street now. The SCMP spells Macau as Macau. Care to comment-- 11:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) ****But the Macanese government uses both, and it uses Macao more often than Macau. ****This [http://www.google.com.sg/searchhl=en&q=%22mainland+China%22+-HK+-%22Hong+Kong%22+-Macau+-Macao+-Taiwan+site%3Astraitstimes.asia1.com.sg&meta= search] gives 34 hits. Try it also with [http://www.google.com.sg/searchas_q=%E5%A4%A7%E9%99%B8&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF+%E6%BE%B3%E9%96%80+%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3+%E8%87%BA%E7%81%A3+%E6%B8%AF+%E6%BE%B3+%E5%8F%B0+%E8%87%BA&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=zaobao.com&safe=images Zaobao]. — 12:45, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) ****Quoted from this [http://www.zaobao.com/bilingual/pages/bilingual040499.html article] on Zaobao website: Within the Chinese language, there are already discernible differences in the Chinese used in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. . — 10:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) ***(response to Instantnood s comment at 09:34, Mar 23, 2005) I want to point out that Instantnood responded to my posting of newspaper articles by saying that they are for common usage, not encyclopedic usage. But here, all of a sudden it s okay. It is an inconsistent position that until he chooses one or the other, his/her opinion cannot be taken seriously.-- 16:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) ****Huaiwei doubted if the term mainland China was used in the same way by people, say, from Singapore. What I did was to show him it was. The term does appear on Singaporean newspapers. My position has always been the same, that is, to be as NPOV as possible, and to be as accurate as possible. — 17:28, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) ****Agreed, Amerinese. He quotes from a particular source when it is in his favour, and steers clear from the same source when it is not. I do not know if this is supposed to enforce his believe that he is being accurate, or even NPOV. As far as I know, he fails dismally in being NPOV in particular.-- 18:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) *****The quotes from Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao were to tell Huaiwei the term mainland China is also used in Singapore. Quotes by Amerinese illustrated common use of the term Taiwan . Are the two events comparable — 21:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) ******We obviously know what your intentions are. No need to explicitely say it. What you fail to catch, thou, is your lack of consistency in arguments. You reject the use of newspapers as a demonstration of common usage in one instance, and accept it in another. Based on this, in what way are you to assume, that the usage of the term by the Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao (something I did not even deny, btw) is supposed to reflect the government in Beijing, and all things to do with the PRC, with or without references to the two SARS I asked you this, and you seem to miss the point. Obviously the term gets used in the press here, and gets used in everyday speak. My question to you, is was it used as a substitute to the term China or the PRC in refering to the country of the PRC-- 22:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) *******The articles from Straits and Zaobao were to illustrate it is not unheard in your hometown. It was not a demonstration of common usage.In case you ve missed my answer that mainland China is used in articles with no reference to Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, I copy and paste the link here, from my comment at 12:45, Mar 23, 2005. [http://www.google.com.sg/searchhl=en&q=%22mainland+China%22+-HK+-%22Hong+Kong%22+-Macau+-Macao+-Taiwan+site%3Astraitstimes.asia1.com.sg&meta=].And, again, to repeat myself, mainland China is not a country. It is used to refer to territories administered by the PRC, minus Hong Kong and Macao. — 11:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) *Strongly disagree. Out of this messy potpourri of terms, (China, PRC, ROC, Taiwan, etc.), Mainland China is the most NPOV term that we have. I say we make use of it as much as we can. -- ) 01:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) **Comment.I am beginning to have serious doubts over your open-armed acceptance of the term Mainland China as a cure-all, by insisting that it is the least NPOV. If NPOV is what you want, than there are better terms then that...Zhonghua for one. Ironically, I once tought the term Mainland China was geographic, and hence slightly more NPOV, until the almost obssessed keeness in the usage of that term by Instantnood has made me realise just how UN-NPOV it is. That he has been promoting the use of the term over the PRC because of his anti-PRC slant has caught the attention of not just myself. Even non-Asians have noticed and commented on this, and they could sence his usage of (what we used to think was) an innocent term to advance political agendas. I am quite amused some of the ethnic Chinese above fail to observe this, probably in their pre-occupation over the Taiwan/ROC issue-- 18:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) ***I m afraid you re getting too far. Even the PRC government uses the term mainland China to refer to itself, when Hong Kong and Macao are excluded. It s your ignorant, excuse me for