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

Result was no consensus to merge --Cybercobra (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Propose to merge "China" and "People's Republic of China".

Arguments:

- "China" commonly refers to the PRC and "Taiwan" commonly refers to ROC

- Other countries articles refer to them by their general name eg. "Iran" for the article on the Islamic Republic of Iran, or "Russia" for the Russian Federation

- By presenting PRC and ROC as subarticles to "China" it gives undues weight to the position of ROC seperate statehood which is not accepted by the great majority of countries nor international bodies like UN, WHO, IMF etc

- History on previous regimes and dynasties can be listed in history section of main articles on China post-merger, possible a link to a seperate article, which will bring the China/PRC article in line with the standards for the articles on other countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.15.244 (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion on this on the discussion pages of the China article which is partially protected, suggest that someone with an account tag that article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.15.244 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This (the status quo) is a reasonably good solution to the problem of where to put information on historical China and it avoids silly POV disputes. And the majority of countries and int'l bodies actually take no position on the matter, IIRC, as I was told as much the last time I made a similar remark regarding the international viewpoint. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Silly POV disputes" ? I thought maintaining NPOV was one of the most important issues in writing encyclopedic material. Majority of countries have no position? Then why do near all goverments in the world have embassies and official diplomatic contact with PRC and merely a handful with ROC? Int'l bodies don't take a position? Then why is PRC a member of the UN and ROC not and why does IMF refer to PRC as "China" and ROC as "Taiwan, province of China"? link: [1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.15.244 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been discussed too many times in the archive. There is nothing new presented. Benjwong (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please mention your reasons for opposing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.15.244 (talk • contribs)

• Support Readin (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you be so kind as to provide a reason? --Cybercobra (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My reasons are pretty much the same as two of the reasons stated earlier

"China" commonly refers to the PRC and "Taiwan" commonly refers to ROC

Other countries articles refer to them by their general name eg. "Iran" for the article on the Islamic Republic of Iran, or "Russia" for the Russian Federation

Readin (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the part about "it gives undues weight to the position of ROC seperate statehood which is not accepted by the great majority of countries nor international bodies like UN, WHO, IMF etc"? T-1000 (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Such organizations are as unbiased on this issue as the Tobacco industry on the subject of smoking's effects on health.

The organizations are pressured or tempted into their statements by China's power and China's market. Do we consider celebrity endorsements for products in commercials as representing the celebrities point of view? Do we consider statements made under duress as indicative of a person's point of view? Then why should we do so for organizations? Do we have one shred of evidence to reliably support the idea that these organizations would still pretend the ROC's separate statehood does not exist were it not for the PRC's economic and military power? The PRC is indeed economically and militarily powerful, but that does not mean we should give its views undue weight even if other organizations choose to do so. Readin (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant that it is ironic that TI people would support a proposal started by a person that's trying to get rid of ROC separate statehood altogether. T-1000 (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose If this does merge, the history doesn't fit as you say it would. Ming Dynasty = China while Ming Dynasty ≠ PRC. Anyone forgot about ROC? there are still countries recognize it as China. This is just pushing own's point of View.--Lennlin (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The history of previous regimes is listed as seperate articles in all other instances on the articles on countries. For example the Russia article refers to the current Russian Federation, not previous regimes like Soviet Union, same with the Iran article refering to the current Islamic Republic of Iran and not the Achaemenid or Safavid empires. Why different standards for China? To me thats pushing POV.

No, because in modern politics Russia IS the Russian Federation and Iran IS Iran. But China has the PRC and the ROC officially claiming the same land. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose But if you do make this merge then kindly also merge North America under United States. Hcobb (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

North America is not commonly in use as a synonym for the United States. Though China in common discourse and in regular news outlets and almost all other common sources almost invariably refers to the People's Republic of China.

But it's a convenient shorthand. In politics it is truly ROC and PRC. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So the cries of Death to America are attacks against Brazil? Hcobb (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The above comment is right in pointing out that America (though not "North America" as claimed in the earlier posting) is used in daily communication as a synonym for the United States, but it is equally true that most news outlets will refer to it as the United States. A further important difference with the question about China/PRC-merger is that the North and South-Americas consists of several sovereign states that all have membership in the UN and all have representation in important international bodies as well as having official diplomatic relations with most other countries in the world therefore making necessary the differentiation of America from the United States. In the case of China only the People's Republic of China is a UN member, with official diplomatic relations with near all countries in the world in sharp contrast ROC/Taiwan is not a UN member, is not a direct member of important international bodies, and has official diplomatic relations with only a dozen or so countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.86.90 (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - the current setup properly distinguishes between China as a civilization and the current entities that exist in that region. It is somewhat akin to the way that we have an article on Western civilization and then articles on all of the countries in Europe.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The most analogous way to setup up the articles on China would be to move the text in the article China to the article on Chinese civilization.

No, because "China" unambiguously refers to the Chinese civilization, but in modern politics it is still divided. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per the last several proposals to do the same thing. The established consensus is to keep the two articles separate. Aside from which, it would conflict logically with the One China Policy subscribed to by the PRC, ROC, USA, the UN, etc. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The UN has only People's Republic of China as a member state, Taiwan/ROC is not a member of the UN. The US does not have an official Embassy in ROC but it has in PRC. Only a handful of states has official diplomatic contact with ROC, see the Political status of Taiwan. The One China policy is an agreement that there is only one China but that different entities interpret it differently. So far China's interpretation seems to have won ground seeing that only it officialy participates in most international bodies UN, IMF etc. And close to all countries in the world have embassies in PRC and only a handful in ROC. Giving the impression otherwise is misleading.

There are still many countries that recognize the ROC instead of the PRC. "Close to all countries" is not good enough. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support since China is the common name for the PRC. The current "China" article is incorrectly named and should be moved to "Civilization of China". Laurent (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support forever. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Could you provide your rationale? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. This is never going to gain consensus so this vote is essentially unnecessary. Colipon+(Talk) 18:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

except to shine the light on hypocrisy. I think that is always useful, even in a battle lost before it is started. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Oppose - Violates the NPOV policy. T-1000 (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

IMHO the POV that China = ROC is not very popular anymore. Yaan (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The government of the ROC still officially claims it, one. Two, the reason why "China=PRC" is so common is because the PRC pressures the UN and other governments into doing so. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Yaan (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please just read the past discussions. This has been brought up many, many times before. T-1000 (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Violates the NPOV policy. Also, it is the same issue as America and United States. Uirauna (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know how you think the NPOV policy would be violated. The NPOV policy also requires us not to give undue weight to minority views, which is what's happening with the current title of the article. Laurent (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging China and PRC would make it impossible to be neutral about whether Taiwan is a part of China, since then Taiwan would either have to be inside or outside the China article. As Ngchen said, both sides are significant and leaving one side out would be a NPOV violation. NPOV is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, common usage is not. T-1000 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is already impossible to be neutral because of the existing China article. At least with the PRC article we can be clear on what the article is supposed to cover, and we can present the claims and counter-claims, including the history, as Schmucky has stated. The merger would make the NPOV issue much easier to deal with. Readin (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, Taiwanese do not object being included the "the Chinese Civilization". See link here: http://www.gvm.com.tw/gvsrc/200907_GVSRC_others.pdf T-1000 (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Preposterous. Taiwan would not be "inside or outside" a merged PRC/China article. The claims of the PRC would be presented, along with wikilinks and everything else necessary to explain the situation for NPOV context. We do not present PRC claims over Taiwan as fact anywhere. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

All Countries either recognize either PRC or ROC as the legitimate government of China. This PRC/China and ROC/Taiwan thing you are proposing has no international recognition at all. T-1000 (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

International usage of the term "China" refers to the PRC exclusively. I don't know what your second sentence means. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You bring up a good point. However, the idea that the PRC's sovereignty (as opposed to de facto control) includes or doesn't include Taiwan is highly controversial, and the idea that it does or does not are both viewpoints with a significant number of followers. At the same time, the idea that the ROC is in some sense also "Chinese" and at least "part of China" is quite mainstream. Of course, the view that the PRC is totally illegitimate, and that the ROC is the true legitimate government of all the areas in question would be borderline fringe, but that is not what we're talking about. Ngchen (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the PRC should or should not control Taiwan, and whether or not Taiwan is "Chinese" has no bearing on the overwhelming usage of the rest of the world outside Taiwan of the word "China" to refer to the PRC, and that usage by itself says nothing about sovereignty, rights, ethnicity, or territorial control of any of the PRCs controversial claims and controls. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Actually Wikipedia already has standards on how to avoid NPOV on such issues. From WP:Naming conflict: "In English, it is conventional for states to be referred to by their geographical territory as a short form - thus the "United Kingdom" for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, "Hungary" for the Republic of Hungary, and so on. Note that this applies to states even where they do not control the whole of the geographical territory in question; "Ireland" is the official name for the Republic of Ireland, and is often used rather than the extended description - even though "Ireland" is also the geographical name for the whole island of Ireland, of which the United Kingdom's Northern Ireland makes up part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.15.253 (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support The general use of China is overwhelmingly to refer to the People's Republic of China in modern discourse. Regardless of the issue of Taiwan sovereignty merging PRC with China is just a good idea.Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - for reasons stated above. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose for reasons above. PRC and ROC are two entities claiming "China" and we must be neutral between them. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. What a load! As Benjwong stated, there's nothing new to argue in this case. Most of the world...blah blah blah. Fact: most of the world is uneducated. A lot of people assume Taiwan is a completely separate country having never had anything to do with the rest of China. Just because a great deal of people are ignorant of Chinese history, doesn't make the way they refer to the things correct. Educate people--isn't that what Wikipedia is for. Thankfully, the Internet isn't subject to the One China Policy. Night w (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a one China policy, because there can be only one set of text at the article named China. What is the subject that the majority of Wikipedia readers expect to find when they type "China" into Wikipedia? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Oppose I cannot stress this, technically there are still two Chinas, PRC and ROC: Two sets of government with different economies, ideologies, electorial systems, currencies, infrastructures, laws, flags, anthems, foreign policies, passports, olympic teams, military, education and so on. Yet, both states call themsevles "China." Taiwan is strictly an island, and ROC also claims other small islands including Matsu.--Kingj123 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone close this proposed merger?, Its clear the majority is opposed to this change, many strongly opposing. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.