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

[Ray Saintonge]

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