What do they have to do with each other?
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.
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.
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 (just now--my China talk page comments are all brand new) replied by saying the following:
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 following two statements are converses, and as they are universal affirmative statements and as I just got done teaching intro logic, I'd like to point out that they are not logically equivalent:
* Every time someone wants to refer to the PRC is a time they use the word "China." (Not actually true, of course, but this is very often, even usually the case.) * Every time someone uses the word "China" is a time they want to refer to the PRC. (Outrageously false. It totally depends on the context. Chinese history isn't the history the PRC, for example.)
End of quote.
I think I understand now why Mav and some others were so seemingly (to me) peremptory about the issue. It's because they are working on [[WikiProject Countries]], and they take it to be in they brief to find the appropriate short form name of every country on the list. I suspect the people at work on this WikiProject see "People's Republic of China" and say, quite reasonably, that people call the PRC "China"--that's the popular name. Similarly for the case of "Republic of Ireland" and "Ireland. But again, that doesn't mean that "China" always means the PRC, or that "Ireland" always means the Republic. The PRC and the Republic have been around for less than 100 years, and China per se and Ireland per se are ancient and far greater and ultimately more important than the modern states.
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.
Larry
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:51:59AM -0800, Larry Sanger wrote:
called [[Ireland]]. China and Ireland as topics are much bigger than those states.
<aol>What he said!</aol>
Jonathan
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