The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arguments roughly split between "merge" and "keep". (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 02:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two Chinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to be entirely a WP:POVFORK and mish-mash of content from various other articles, and probably a WP:COATRACK for various issues. Prisencolin (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have heard the term being used multiple times, but I will need to look through some scholarly sources first. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep zh:兩個中國 is a rather complete article and explains historical uses of the term not covered elsewehere here. The page is also linked from various other articles, and there is no single page it can redirect to. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chinese Wiki page seems to have the same problems as this page to be honest.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although certainly an important topic all of its information is already given in other articles on the history and current situation of China and Taiwan. (I assert with confidence, but not having personally checked it out. If not it should be added there.) I don't think we would have an article on "Two United Stateses" to suppliment our articles on the American Civil War and the Confederate States of America, nor would we have "Two Vietnams" or "Two Germanies". Do we even have Two Koreas? Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference is that the Chinese Civil War is still technically ongoing, without even an armistice like the Korean War, and entirely unlike those in Vietnam, Germany, and America. There's Division of Korea, though that's more about the way in which they were divided. If this is considered equivalent to Division of China, most of the background would be in Chinese Civil War. There's 1992 Consensus, One Country on Each Side and One-China policy - which might be seen as a counterpart to this, as represented by the fact that this article is linked in that article's lede. GreenReaper (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mostly merge to a comparative section within One-China policy, or perhaps other articles if deemed appropriate. Many of the topics raised here may be viewed as a "reality check" on the one-China policy as proposed by both parties, and separating it biases both that article and this one. "Two Chinas" as a phrase may have some importance, similar to "One Country on Each Side", but if so the article should be focused on that and backed up with references of its use in that context. GreenReaper (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'm certain that more political reasons influenced this rather than just contributors simply disagreeing with each other. As a important tpoic I'm very surprised there isn't a complete article explaining this in a clear manner. However, for merging, either keeping only One-China policy or only Two Chinas might be controversial, so I personally think should be a more neutral title. Or, keep, since this subject may qualify the reasoning "Articles whose subject is a POV". Blueeighthnote (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This term seems to be used widely. It is actually interchangeably with "Two China policy" or "One China one Taiwan". It is essentially an alternative to the one China policy and refers to the situation where China would govern the current territory held by PRC and Taiwan governs the territory held by ROC. It seems the term used to have a previous meaning earlier though. (See [1]). Regardless, I think it is worth keeping this article and adding more information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also [2], [3] and [4]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and consider renaming to One China principle. As the article on One-China policy states in its lede section:

  Quote: The One China policy is also different from the "One China principle" (一个中国原则; 一個中國原則; yīgè Zhōngguó yuánzé), which is the principle that insists both Taiwan and mainland China are inalienable parts of a single "China".[3]

  The two "Chinas" are quite different to the two Indies, the two Washingtons, the two Galicias or the multiple Guineas and Guyanas. It sometimes happens that two titles that appear to be near opposites are in fact the same topic and covered in the same article. One of the joys of reading Wikipedia is coming across such an article and realizing the equivalence. The phrase "Two Chinas" is thus equivalent to the One China principle.

  The article now reads too much like a disambiguation page. It would be better to move or copy the beginning of the section Current situation to the lede section of the article:

  Quote: "The People's Republic of China (which administers mainland China) and Republic of China (which administers Taiwan) do not officially recognize each other's sovereignty. The official position of the governments of both the People's Republic of China and Republic of China remain that there is only one sovereign entity of China, and that each of them represents the legitimate government of all of China - including both mainland China and Taiwan - and the other is illegitimate."

  -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Seems to me that they're opposites - Two Chinas says there are two Chinas, One China Principle says there is one. Either way, Keep as it's covered in ample sources. But oppose renaming since they're not the same at all. Smartyllama (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree here. One China principle is actually a proposed approach of the Mainland Chinese government according to which Taiwan will ultimately be reunited with the mainland and it will be governed as "one country two systems". This is not the same as "Two Chinas" which advocates an independent Taiwan (as a country separate from Mainland China). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.