Ray (Eclecticology) wrote:
"The official name for any country is the long form..."
Sorry, but I stopped reading at that point.
I think what he meant (or should have said) is the following, which is subtly yet crucially different:
The official name for any *government* is the long form.
China, whether it's "really" one country or not, currently has two sovereign political divisions: PRC and ROC. If one division claims jurisdiction over the other, we should mention that in the article. But we should absolutely not respect one side's claims over the other. We must remain neutral, even if "everyone knows" that the only legitimate government of all of China is X.
Ed Poor
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Ray (Eclecticology) wrote:
"The official name for any country is the long form..."
Sorry, but I stopped reading at that point.
I think what he meant (or should have said) is the following, which is subtly yet crucially different:
The official name for any *government* is the long form.
Although this does not change my agreement about the naming of the articles. I disagree with you factually about the use of long forms. The long form is the formal and official name of a country that it would use in international legal documents. It is not the name of any particular government, even though the name may be changed by successive governments to reflect their particular points of view.
China, whether it's "really" one country or not, currently has two sovereign political divisions: PRC and ROC.
That too is debatable. I happen to support the view that Taiwan is not a part of China, and that its government has no business calling itself China. Chinese occupation of Taiwan only began at the end of the Ming dynasty - a fairly short time by Chinese standards.
If one division claims jurisdiction over the other, we should mention that in the article. But we should absolutely not respect one side's claims over the other. We must remain neutral, even if "everyone knows" that the only legitimate government of all of China is X.
All the more reason for the meaning of [[China]] to be fairly open-ended.
Eclecticology
Eclecticology wrote:
Ed Poor wrote:
"The official name for any country is the long form..." I think what he meant (or should have said) is the following, which is subtly yet crucially different: The official name for any *government* is the long form.
Although this does not change my agreement about the naming of the articles, I disagree with you factually about the use of long forms. The long form is the formal and official name of a country that it would use in international legal documents. It is not the name of any particular government, even though the name may be changed by successive governments to reflect their particular points of view.
This disagreement may reflect a peculiar usage of the term "government" in the United States. I know that in the UK (so I suspect in Canada too), the "government" consists of the various ministers in the cabinet, and one gets a "new" government every time the parliamentary coalition changes. Even in the US, we apply terms this way to parliamentary systems: "The government of Prime Minister Tony Blair has fallen, and elections have been called for next Thursday." (I wish). To an American, however, the government is the whole shebang, the cabinet, the legislature (including the opposition party!), and especially the reams of bureaucracy that affect one's daily life. Just because there's been an election doesn't mean that the Department of Motor Vehicles has changed -- it's the same government. I remember hearing in junior high that the US Constitution is good because Italy (say) has had dozens of governments since the end of WWII, while we've had the same stable government since 1787. I no longer recall if I heard this from an ignoramus or a joker, but it's true only if you change the meaning of the word "government" between the two halves of the sentence.
Anyway, the name "People's Republic of China" is not used by the country. It's used by the government -- this one, and previous ones back to Mao's. It's a political name that wouldn't exist without a government to attach it to. If the Chinese abolished government, it would no longer apply to anything, yet the country of China would continue to exist. Nobody would *change* the name; the Chinese people would continue to call the country "China" (Mandarin "Zhong1guo2") then as now as before.
We can perhaps avoid further debate by saying that the long form is the "official political name" for a country: a name imposed on the country (and officially so) by the dominant political entity there.
China, whether it's "really" one country or not, currently has two sovereign political divisions: PRC and ROC.
That too is debatable. I happen to support the view that Taiwan is not a part of China, and that its government has no business calling itself China. Chinese occupation of Taiwan only began at the end of the Ming dynasty - a fairly short time by Chinese standards.
Similarly, the PRC's territory includes Tibet, arguably not part of China.
If one division claims jurisdiction over the other, we should mention that in the article. But we should absolutely not respect one side's claims over the other. We must remain neutral, even if "everyone knows" that the only legitimate government of all of China is X.
All the more reason for the meaning of [[China]] to be fairly open-ended.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
Eclecticology wrote:
Ed Poor wrote:
"The official name for any country is the long form..." I think what he meant (or should have said) is the following, which is subtly yet crucially different: The official name for any *government* is the long form.
Although this does not change my agreement about the naming of the articles, I disagree with you factually about the use of long forms. The long form is the formal and official name of a country that it would use in international legal documents. It is not the name of any particular government, even though the name may be changed by successive governments to reflect their particular points of view.
This disagreement may reflect a peculiar usage of the term "government" in the United States. I know that in the UK (so I suspect in Canada too), the "government" consists of the various ministers in the cabinet, and one gets a "new" government every time the parliamentary coalition changes. Even in the US, we apply terms this way to parliamentary systems: "The government of Prime Minister Tony Blair has fallen, and elections have been called for next Thursday." (I wish). To an American, however, the government is the whole shebang, the cabinet, the legislature (including the opposition party!), and especially the reams of bureaucracy that affect one's daily life. Just because there's been an election doesn't mean that the Department of Motor Vehicles has changed -- it's the same government.
I don't think that this is so much a US/UK distinction as it is an informed/popular distinction. The popular mind sees all these administrative and bureaucratic agencies as extensions of government; it does not easily distinguish them from legistative functions.
I remember hearing in junior high that the US Constitution is good because Italy (say) has had dozens of governments since the end of WWII, while we've had the same stable government since 1787. I no longer recall if I heard this from an ignoramus or a joker, but it's true only if you change the meaning of the word "government" between the two halves of the sentence.
The Italian example is well known. In parlimentary contexts it is used as a straw man by opponents of electoral reform. "If your proposals for democratic reform went ahead we too could be unstable like Italy."
Anyway, the name "People's Republic of China" is not used by the country. It's used by the government -- this one, and previous ones back to Mao's. It's a political name that wouldn't exist without a government to attach it to.
We don't really differ here. It is used BY governments, and applied BY govenments as a the name OF or FOR the country. As different as Fidel Castro has been from his predecessors he has been quite content to let "Republic of Cuba" remain unchanged as the formal name for that country.
If the Chinese abolished government, it would no longer apply to anything, yet the country of China would continue to exist. Nobody would *change* the name; the Chinese people would continue to call the country "China" (Mandarin "Zhong1guo2") then as now as before.
Now we need to consider the definition of "country". Was China in its various periods of warlordism "a" country during that time, or was it just a loose arrangement of little countries. Today's Afghanistan is a country in name only as long as the goverment in Kabul remains ineffective in extending its influence over rural warlords.
We can perhaps avoid further debate by saying that the long form is the "official political name" for a country: a name imposed on the country (and officially so) by the dominant political entity there.
OK
China, whether it's "really" one country or not, currently has two sovereign political divisions: PRC and ROC.
That too is debatable. I happen to support the view that Taiwan is not a part of China, and that its government has no business calling itself China. Chinese occupation of Taiwan only began at the end of the Ming dynasty - a fairly short time by Chinese standards.
Similarly, the PRC's territory includes Tibet, arguably not part of China.
Indeed!
If one division claims jurisdiction over the other, we should mention that in the article. But we should absolutely not respect one side's claims over the other. We must remain neutral, even if "everyone knows" that the only legitimate government of all of China is X.
I don't mind treating either side's claims with respect as long as that respect does not imply support.
All the more reason for the meaning of [[China]] to be fairly open-ended.
I'm happy to repeat that. How about "China is a geographical territory in eastern Asia whose borders have varied over the millenia of its history"?
Compared to [[China]], dealing with [[Ireland]] is easy.
Eclecticology
Eclecticology wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
To an American, however, the government is the whole shebang, the cabinet, the legislature (including the opposition party!), and especially the reams of bureaucracy that affect one's daily life. Just because there's been an election doesn't mean that the Department of Motor Vehicles has changed -- it's the same government.
I don't think that this is so much a US/UK distinction as it is an informed/popular distinction. The popular mind sees all these administrative and bureaucratic agencies as extensions of government; it does not easily distinguish them from legistative functions.
What would you call these instead? The "state"? That would be confusing in the US, since "State" names one particular level of our government.
I remember hearing in junior high that the US Constitution is good because Italy (say) has had dozens of governments since the end of WWII, while we've had the same stable government since 1787.
The Italian example is well known. In parlimentary contexts it is used as a straw man by opponents of electoral reform. "If your proposals for democratic reform went ahead we too could be unstable like Italy."
Yes, they certainly have had a lot of governments since the end of WWII, but not in the sense that the US has had the same government since 1787.
Anyway, the name "People's Republic of China" is not used by the country. It's used by the government -- this one, and previous ones back to Mao's. It's a political name that wouldn't exist without a government to attach it to.
We don't really differ here. It is used BY governments, and applied BY govenments as a the name OF or FOR the country. As different as Fidel Castro has been from his predecessors he has been quite content to let "Republic of Cuba" remain unchanged as the formal name for that country.
But even that term is a reference to a form of government. Had he adopted the title of "king" ("rey"), he'd have changed it.
If the Chinese abolished government, it would no longer apply to anything, yet the country of China would continue to exist. Nobody would *change* the name; the Chinese people would continue to call the country "China" (Mandarin "Zhong1guo2") then as now as before.
Now we need to consider the definition of "country". Was China in its various periods of warlordism "a" country during that time, or was it just a loose arrangement of little countries. Today's Afghanistan is a country in name only as long as the goverment in Kabul remains ineffective in extending its influence over rural warlords.
Here you seem to be using the term "country" to refer to a political entity. IME, it's a vaguer term that says more, and less, than that. Wales and Scotland are not the same country, but North and South Korea are. This is why it's meaningful to claim that Tibet and China are different countries -- and why this claim isn't quite the same as a call for Tibetan (political) independence.
We can perhaps avoid further debate by saying that the long form is the "official political name" for a country: a name imposed on the country (and officially so) by the dominant political entity there.
OK
This probably settles the matter for purposes of Wikipedia, however much we may argue about things in the above paragraphs. (Well, it would settle it if we were the only two people in Wikipedia.)
How about "China is a geographical territory in eastern Asia whose borders have varied over the millenia of its history"?
Except that "geographical territory", in this context, means "country" ^_^.
Compared to [[China]], dealing with [[Ireland]] is easy.
-- Toby