[WikiEN-l] [[Ireland]] and [[China]]

[Ray Saintonge]

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