Larry Sanger wrote:
Well, this was news to me a few days ago, but the
article at [[Ireland]]
is restricted to the topic of the Republic of Ireland, and the article at
[[China]] is restricted to the topic of the PRC. The two articles (in
their current state) raise the issue of whether the names of ancient lands
and civilizations should be annexed to the dominant modern political
incarnations, to the exclusion of other, closely related states or
political entities. But this has nothing to do with *political* debates
over Northern Ireland or Taiwan, as I hope the following remarks will make
clear.
I had similar personal observations about [[Ireland]], though I confess
that I felt too discouraged to jump into yet another edit war. For
[[China]] I simply had not wandered into that area of Wikipedia recently
to have a look.
It's bizarre, but the issue developed in two
totally different ways on
[[Talk:Ireland]] and on [[Talk:China]]. On the Ireland talk page, Scipius
was the only hold-out for the view that [[Ireland]] should be concerned
only with the Republic of Ireland. On the China talk page, Roadrunner was
apparently the only defender of the view that [[China]] should be about
all of China, not just the PRC.
Bizarre perhaps, but not surprising. Those concerned with such issues
in one part of the world are often oblivious to similar situations in
other parts of the world. There are 22 different contributors listed
for [[Ireland]] and 32 for [[China]]; only 7 contributors show up on
both lists, and some of these were only there for minor incidental
housekeeping. We're mostly dealing with two distinct groups of
contributors.
A comment from Mav (whose judgment and hard work I
admire virtually always
:-) ) suddenly turned a light on in my head (i.e., I had a sudden
realization). He said: "English speakers call it 'China' in overwhelming
numbers."
I don't dispute the factual correctness of Mav's statement (or his hard
work and dedication), but I disagree with the conclusions that he draws
from that statement. I find him to prone to decide issues based on his
genuflections to the Google God. With deepest respect I see Mav as a
dedicated simplifier who would very much like to see knowledge in neatly
wrapped little packages; sometimes that means cutting off the sharp and
thorny bits just to get the gift to fit into the package. Once we get
into that box it is more difficult to look out and see the other
possibilities.
Often, going with the most popular usage can reduce a subject to its
lowest common denominators. It is a big factor in dumbing-down, which
presumes just what the audience is capable of understanding. Is our aim
just to make it easier for the readers to find things? How much
subtlety and depth are we willing to sacrifice to attain simplicity?
Your pronoun contains the whole problem: English
speakers call *what*
China in overwhelming numbers? They certainly use the word "China" in
overwhelming numbers, and it's safe to say that they use the word "China"
to mean "China" in overwhelming numbers. Even the following must also be
conceded: when referring to the vast modern state that rules over the
ancient land known as China, people still use the word "China" (rather
than "People's Republic of China"). But it seems that no one has noticed
that glib pronouncements such as "English speakers call it China" simply
do not entail that that is all that the word "China" means.
The official name for any country is the long form, even if none of us
know about it. It's fine to use the short form when there is no
reasonable chance of ambiguity, and I would guess that that is probably
the case for most countries. The Middle Kingdom has too many layers of
meaning to be usurped by the contemporary political entity. The
situation of [[Ireland]] is less complex, but it is offensive for people
with roots in the six counties to be told that those roots are not from
Ireland.
I think the biggest mistake here is failing to pay due
attention to the
fact that the articles about nations and political entities and countries
are not limited to the list of names given in the CIA Factbook. In the
context of an encyclopedia, it seems pretty obvious that "China" should be
used to mean China--not just part of it--*all* of China, its whole
history, its many languages, its people (all of them), etc. This,
unfortunately or not, means that the article about the modern state, the
PRC, cannot dominate the page called [[China]]. Similarly, the article
about the modern state, the Republic of Ireland, cannot dominate the page
called [[Ireland]]. China and Ireland as topics are much bigger than
those states.
Cogent arguments indeed.
Eclecticology