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