Jump to content

Talk:Taiwan/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Why is this article not called "Republic of China"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the Macedonia name dispute a vote was taken that ignored the provisional UN name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The rationale given for this is that Wikipedia does not conform to international bodies and that self-determination of name trumps regardless of international disputes between states. Ergo - why are the people of the Republic of China held to a different standard? This inconsistent logic smells of prejudice towards either the people of Taiwan and/or the people of Greece. I therefore propose that this article be renamed Republic of China to keep things consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.242.79.10 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


A few points I'd like to add.

  1. The People's Republic of China recognizes the self-determined name of Republic of Macedonia.
  2. The People's Republic of China does not recognize the self-determination of the Republic of China (Taiwan).
  3. The US government, did not recognize Republic of Macedonia in 1944 (the US state department at the time calling it "communist demagoguery") but flip flopped in 2003 and now recognizes it.
  4. The US government, orginally did recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) -- right up until it flip-flopped and removed recognition in the 1970s.

This opens up the secondary question is Wikipedia taking a principled approach on international issues or simply parroting the current foreign policy of leading nations? (i.e. mob rule) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.242.79.10 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

For the reasons given here: Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20. A lot of discussion so a lot of reading, but if you're interested in the issue I think well worth reading at least the highlights of it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
For the same reason that we have North Korea not the 'Democratic People Republic of Korea' and we have Burma not the 'Republic of the Union of Myanmar'. It is policy to use the common English name. Not the official name; not the UN designated name; not the preferred name of the local people; but the common name as used by English speaking people to describe the subject. See WP:Naming Conventions for more information about how article names are decided on Wikipedia. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Naming this article 'Taiwan' does not contribute clarity. Titling the article 'Taiwan' may lead the reader to belief that such a country as 'Taiwan' exists, or that 'Taiwan' can be equated to the 'Republic of China', which are both invalid arguments in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of China. The fact is that no country called 'Taiwan' exists, and that the 'Republic of China' cannot be casually associated with 'Taiwan' as historically they are very distinct entities. It also contravenes the rules for Wikipedia's neutral POV rules, as it promotes the DPP's assertion that Taiwan should edge toward independence by increasing the usage of 'Taiwan' without officially abandoning the 'Republic of China' name. It is for the sake of objectiveness that the official name should be used. See: WP:Neutral point of viewZ10987 (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Again see the requested move, where this was debated in long detail to arrive at the current title, best representing consensus and common usage. The article is Taiwan reflecting the common name for the country.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you JohnBlackburne for your clarification on this matter. I agree that this article should be named Taiwan for the sake of clarity to English speakers in Wikipedia. However, I believe that it should be made clearer that the Republic of China is not equivalent to Taiwan. Z10987 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
If the reader wants to actually understand what the topic is about and what the name means they can simply read the article or even just the lede where all is explained with great clarity. There is no requirement that a name be perfectly self-explanatory and not lead to any possible confusion. As stated above we follow wikipedia naming convention which is to use the common English name for the topic. A discussion, which was quite thorough and included participation representing a great variety of views on the matter was held. If the current name is the one favored by the DPP then that is a meaningless coincidence, one that Wikipedia is not at all concerned with. If you ( that is anybody ) have something new to add that you believe challenges basis for the concensus that was formed then I suggest you add it below, but I suggest you at least scan the previous move discussion first. TL;DR It's called Taiwan cuz that's what the editors decided it should be called after a long discussion. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree that the article should be called "Republic of China". It used to be called that but about a year ago or so, it was changed. With the new convention, we end up in the bizarre situation where we would be referring to "The Taiwanese Army during World War 2" etc.....One size does not fit all. Common name approach has its limitations in an encyclopedia addressing the history of a state that at one time embraced about a fifth of humanity. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
That situation wouldn't arise because the ROCA at the time was China's army. There is also an article on the historical entity the ROC, i.e. China before the Communists took over (Republic of China (1912–49)). I would say the old system of referring to Taiwan as the ROC was far more confusing to most readers because they have no idea what the ROC is, but know what Taiwan is. Like people have heard of Burma but not Myanmar nearly as much. John Smith's (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
What's confusing to readers is utterly irrelevant to this project. Until reunification occurs, or the mob press, suited to the on-average exceedingly dumb and ignorant consumer, changes its ways, whichever happens first, no discussion about the naming of this page will lead anywhere. Enough is enough. Move on. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 08:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Martial Arts

A subsection about the indigenous martial arts of Taiwan would be nice, but it is beyond my competence. In cases like the Internal arts, such as Xing Yi and Ba Gua Chang, they need to be treated as part of the Taoist tradition, which could complicate matters. But this is best addressed by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msml (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Name of Taiwan

Taiwan was named by Portuguese as Illa Formosa and this has not been added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.79.6 (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the article, namely in the "Names" section. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014

is December 7

The government of the Republic of China moves from Nanking to Taipei, Taiwan. 190.193.132.122 (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 21:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Question, if moving the article to "Taiwan" was such a good idea......why can't we say: "1949: The government of Taiwan moves from Nanking to Taipei, Taiwan?". Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The infobox on the right hand side of the article contains such an information:

The ROC government retreated to Taipei due to Chinese Civil War. 1 October 1949/December 10, 1949

Vanjagenije (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Vanjagenije. Of course I agree with you. But we call this article "Taiwan" now so it flows from that decision that we can say silly things like "1949: The government of Taiwan moves from Nanking to Taipei, Taiwan". This is what the consensus is basically saying. Not making a distinction between the ROC and Taiwan. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Partially-recognised in first sentence?

I disagree the fact that Taiwan has only partial international recognition should be mentioned in the first sentence. On the other hand, an alternative I would be okay with is a neutrally written sentence briefly noting its complex political status at the end of the first paragraph, before we dive into the history and only address the issue in the third paragraph. Thoughts? wctaiwan (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can say without qualification that it is a sovereign state, when that is such a highly disputed claim. WP:NPOV demands that we give WP:DUE weight to both POVs. Whether that means we say "disputed state", "partially recognized state" or something else, I'm open to discuss. But claiming that it is a sovereign state without explaining that their independence is disputed by most of the world doesn't seem to be a NPOV way of presenting the facts. TDL (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, the current state of affairs is [[sovereign state|state]]. The main issue I have with some of the wordings, especially ones like "disputed", is that they often present a misleading picture of Taiwan--China is politically powerful, so Taiwan has very little official recognition as a state, but in every other manner it functions like one, with an elected government and its own quasi-embassies. Last time this debate took place, some people didn't like the usage of the word "sovereign", others didn't like "disputed" or "de-facto independent", so a compromised was reached to just use "state". wctaiwan (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Right, but if we link to sovereign state then we are claiming that it is a sovereign state. In fact, that link violates WP:EGG so we need to either stop hiding the "sovereign" or change the link to State (polity).
The reason why the ROC is disputed is of secondary importance. Our job is to report facts as they are, not as they could be if China wasn't so powerful. Everyone, including both the PRC and ROC, agree that there is a dispute so I don't see how this is misleading. All of your arguments could be applied to say Republic of Kosovo (which is recognized by 5x as many states), but that article uses " partially recognised state". Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic has similar wording. TDL (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This source says of states such as Taiwan: "'partially recognized' states would therefore be a more accurate description of these entities than 'de facto state' or 'unrecognized state'. But 'contested state' is an even better term inasmuch as it neatly captures the full political and legal problems faced by these territories." Any of these terms (de facto, partially recognized, disputed, contested) works for me, but again, asserting as a fact that it is a sovereign state without any explanation that this claim is widely disputed by other states is very misleading and does not give WP:DUE weight to both POVs. Any willingness to compromise here, or do I need to seek WP:DR? TDL (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept either or both of the following: 1. de-linking "state" to avoid any appearance of weaselling (though really, the limited recognition doesn't really change the fact that in practice, the ROC has full sovereignty over its actual territory), 2. as I proposed above, adding a neutrally worded sentence at the end of the first paragraph to give greater prominence (but still not first-sentence, most-important-thing-about-the-subject kind of prominence) to the issue. Alternatively, if you could get clear consensus among at least a few other long-term editors for your proposal, I'm certainly not going to try to block it single-handedly. wctaiwan (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't broke. Why change it? We've had discussions in the past about the wording within the lead paragraph, and the current state is a compromise between a bunch of differing viewpoints. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  • (Note: Now that I realise, a few months down the track and the above comment can be misinterpreted. Back in September, I was in support of User:Wctaiwan's points, after another user attempted to make various changes to the lead paragraph.) --benlisquareT•C•E 10:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that the current wording is problematic. The claim that Taiwan is a state is a "seriously contested assertion", in the words of WP:NPOV, and therefore we cannot assert it. I would suggest instead the wording "de facto independent country". We could then say in the second sentence that its de jure status is disputed. Neljack (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It was a compromise made some time ago within a heavy contested topic, between two sides with strongly differing opinions. One side preferred to state that Taiwan was "an independent country", whilst the other side preferred "a largely unrecognised, disputed political entity", with strong emphasis on the adjectives used by both sides. Though, I do have to say that consensus isn't permanent, and can change, and so if people think that the status quo needs to be changed, another WP:RFC can be started. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of "partially recognised". It is such an important fact that it ought to have been left in. The "Republic of China" does not exist from the perspective of countries representing over 99% of the world's population. That is a fundamental fact and the first sentence shouldn't mask the complexity. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If "partially recognised" is going to be put in for Republic of China, it needs to also be put in for People's Republic of China. The latter has no diplomatic recognition with over 20 countries which is still about 10% of the commonly recognized nations. That's as much of a fundamental fact as what you state. States with limited recognition article includes PRC as well as ROC, among others. Furthermore, a large number of the countries officially recognizing PRC have relations with ROC in all but name, whereas there is very little unofficial contact of that sort with PRC for countries that recognize ROC.
The current form of simply "state" is what I find most neutral, as after all, people from diverse ethnic and national backgrounds (meaning, different official stances on ROC) read this article. Abstractematics (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. There is a huge difference between an entity that is recognised by 90% of its peers, and one that is recognised by 10% of its peers. The current form of "state", especially linking to "sovereign state", is not at all neutral, and while may be the case de facto, is definitely not the case de jure to the vast majority of the world. The opening paragraph needs to recognise this distinction, and unequivocally qualify that Taiwan is not recognised officially as a sovereign state by the vast majority of sovereign states and other international bodies. Alkenrinnstet (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
That's already stated in the description of the opening and the body. Link to political status of Taiwan is littered throughout Taiwan-related articles. You don't need to shove it into the definition. That's POV, one against those nations that do recognize ROC - and in fact do not recognize PRC. Abstractematics (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User talk:Alkenrinnstet; the ROC is recognised by states whose population make up less than 1% if the world's population. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Using the same approach we should also write in the lead that the State of Israel is partially recognised. No way...
The current wording for this article is appropriate. However the condition of being sovereign is only partially linked to recognition. A country could be theoretically recognised by all UN members minus one country, the one occupying it. In this case would be not sovereign. On the other hand, a country with very limited official recognition can be sovereign and this is the case of the ROC.--Silvio1973 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I think what first comes to mind would be Cambodia, which for many years had the ousted government recognised by the UN and majority of countries, and the occupying regime unrecognised. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment. Indeed, it was recognised but not sovereign. In the case of the ROC it's exactly the opposite. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi, please don't equate states with their population. "A group of countries that make up 99% of the world's population" does not mean 99% of the world's population actually agrees with it. Plenty of people in those countries dissent; it's entirely possible for a government of a country to say one thing and the majority of the population to say another. I live in the United States, which reluctantly recognizes People's Republic of China, but I do not agree at all. Furthermore, we're talking about international relations. In international relations we go by state-per-state count, not population. We do not think less of smaller countries just because they have smaller population. We treat them as equals. Abstractematics (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of many policies that 99 per cent of the world's population would agree on. One China included. I've never equated populations and governments in that way. It is simply a remarkable objective fact that Governments representing over 99 percent of the world's population, indeed nearly 90 per cent of its states, don't recognise the ROC. International relations are between States, agreed. And it is a fact that only a small minority of the World's states, all small and usually hoping to benefit from handouts, recognise the ROC. This all makes the partially recognised tag very appropriate here. Comparisons with Israel are pretty silly. Israel is recognised by the vast majority of countries and all the leading powers. Similarly, the PRC's recognition is overwhelming too. The ROC is in a different league...If it partially recognised, that is putting it at its best. Largely unrecognised, would probably be more accurate and plain. I suppose politics is probably the root of this discussion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
One more thing, my views aren't about thinking less of any one or any state; just that Wikipedia should be accurate and unbiased. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
It may be true that the current administrations of a group of countries officially recognize PRC and they happen to have 99% of the population, emphases intended. Whether that statistic is relevant to this discussion is another matter. It's just like with General Assembly Resolution 68/262. Populations should be left out unless sources make actual use of them (or argue against doing so). To use the population count as an argument is an OR synthesis, as are words like "handouts".
And I want to say that "largely unrecognised" phrasing is too biased in favor of the majority. If 20 countries recognize ROC then it's a recognized country; someone sovereign recognizes it. "Unrecognised" should only be used when actually unrecognised. On the flip side, it would be fair to apply similar treatment to Israel because vast majority is still partial. Basically, we shouldn't assign binary qualities solely based on size of quantities.
To further underscore my point, NGOs and other groups such as Freedom House and Economist Intelligence Unit treat Taiwan much like any other country, sometimes more so than other states with limited recognition. Also, when a host country or organization invites ROC as the sole China, the PRC-recognizing states abide by that. For instance, the funeral held at Vatican City. These are global meetings, not just meetings among those 20 countries recognizing ROC.
And I think that's the real accurate and unbiased approach. Instead of a simple binary stance on who is recognized or not, we should be more focused on the fact that a contention does exist. It's enough that any political article on Taiwan inevitably leads to its political status. It would not be fair to treat PRC as having perfectly fine diplomacy when the contention is still there for its own status.Abstractematics (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, we disagree on basics. If about 90% of the world's states don't recognise a polity as a state but about 10% do, I think, in a case like that, it's appropriate to classify the polity as what it is: "partially recognised". You don't. By the way, we were only discussing that wording: "partially recognised". Above you got into a discussion of "largely unrecognised". No one has proposed that description. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I replied to you about that because you brought it up first.
Anyway, my original argument was that while ROC is partially recognized, so is PRC. Yet PRC is labeled "sovereign state" with no apparent signs of contested diplomacy. I mean, how big does a minority of countries have to be before you see it as relevant? 22? 32? 109? It's arbitrary, so it's best to go with the consensus. And the consensus, as Alkenrinnstet already stated, is to just call it a state or country without POV-leaning qualifiers, and proceed to talk about its international status in the description. Abstractematics (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
User talk:Abstractematics - For clarity, are you against the words "partially recognised" as a description for any place that claims to be a sovereign state including Abkhazia, Turkish North Cyprus, South Ossetia, Transnestria and Nagorno-Karabakh etc.? Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
There are three options when it comes to this: all, none, or consensus. As I mentioned, the consensus here seems to be to leave the opening statement simple and defer the explanation of the status to the rest of the paragraph.
Personally I don't think the qualifier is necessary in the opening sentence if both the lead and politics/foreign relations sections & articles adequately explain the international standing. (And it's the same reason why I think the article should remain as "Taiwan".)Abstractematics (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Abstractematics:
"The consensus here seems to be to leave the opening statement simple and defer the explanation of the status to the rest of the paragraph." I don't agree with that at all. The opening statement is not "simple". It includes a positive and unqualified explanation that the ROC is a "state". Would you support taking out the reference then to "state" if you'd like something simple, consensus orientated and that leaves explanations of status to the rest of the paragraph etc.?
Otherwise, given that you are opposed to any place that claims to be a state being described in a leded as "partially recognised", I appreciate your principled stance. Although I don't share that stance, it makes sense to me, is logical and defensible. Basically, we disagree but I don't think you are "wrong". Have you made submissions on the articles of any of the other countries that are affected by this practice (like Abkhazia and North Cyprus and all the others I mentioned) asking that they have the word "partially recognised" taken out. Or is this just one article you have taken a special interest in and decided to champion an inconsistent approach for? Obviously it's not any one's job to contribute on all articles etc. but I am curious again. Obviously the approach being taken here on this page is not consistent with the approach taken on the others, I think all of them. I wouldn't blame you of course if you are not interested in the other articles as much. I am not as interested in North Cyprus as I am in the ROC. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the problem calling it a state. A state with limited recognition is, by definition, a state. The purpose of the rest of the paragraph is to explain what kind of state it is. Abstractematics (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Taiwan is a lovely island surrounded by water....If you'd said that, I think it would have been equally irrelevant to my questions. I guess you are bored with questions. That's fair enough. With me, you can always just say as much! All the best. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Naming issues

John Smith's mentioned about the name and referred to Myanmar. JS seemed to think Burma is better known than Myanmar and so the former should be used. I disagree. This is a quasi encyclopedia. It's about sharing knowledge, not misinformation. We know what that country's name is. We should use it. There is no Burma any more. There is still a Republic of China and my point about the ridiculousness of discussing a Taiwan army during WW2 hasn't been addressed. Instead some one said that they went to the lengths of creating a separate article for the ROC for an earlier period....Now that isn't logical. We don't do that for other countries. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, have consideration for the productivity of this. The only concern of many of these people here is to blindly follow the press and what they deem to be reliable sources. Until the press changes its habits or reunification rightfully occurs, no discussion on the naming of this page will lead anywhere. Enough is enough."My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 17:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It was a process of discussion and deliberation that led to the recent change to rename this article "Taiwan" from ROC where it had been for years. So we can talk about "Taiwan during WW2" etc. (clarity there etc?). So yes, I have consideration for the productivity of this sort of discussion. It produced a major change recently. No good reason a similar discussion couldn't result with a change back. Any way, final thought: "productivity" evokes thoughts of something like a factory. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't we handle it something like how we handle Turkey during World War I? Simply state that at that time the state now called Taiwan was known as the Republic of China and use that name in those sections. --Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Frenchmalawi, it is basically wrong to mix these two concepts. 1. Taiwan is just part of ROC, there are many islands are still under control of ROC. 2. ROC has never given up their rights for mainland. 3. Ironically, based on ROC's constitution, its capital is still Nan Jing. 4. If you could check Chinese version ROC page and Taiwan page, you would find out how much different they are. The truth is out there, Taiwan is a samll island, never was and never to be a country. --WWWXXX(talk) 00:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A consensus here, WP:COMMONAME, and masses of people all around the world disagree with you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
As the old saying goes, what happens on Chinese wikipedia stays on Chinese wikipedia. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (SNOW) Armbrust The Homunculus 16:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan → Republic of China – Because Taiwan has not always been the same as ROC, even though it now is Mistakefinder (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Reason: This article states that the country is officially Republic of China, which is true, but not true for most of its history. The way the article is now, a reader would likely be misled, by quick reading or just glancing table of contents thinking Taiwan just IS officially called ROC. The history subheading does not clearly indicate take over in 1945 as a distinct start of administration. The ROC should be its own article with Taiwan being a distinct topic, or otherwise should be a redirect to ROC article since it's not a "real" name for the country but an AKA alias, other than the island itself. Also I'm proposing the Republic of China (1912–1949) to be merged to Republic of China. See related discussion at Talk:Republic of China (1912–49)#Merger proposal. This way, Taiwan can have its own article describing the various histories, rulers, and geography apart of ROC. Taiwan Island which now redirects to Geography of Taiwan doesn't make much sense. It should include all relevant info, history and governance as well, except the details of government should be taken to the ROC article (under subheading in History -- Rule on Taiwan) covering 1945 onward. Mistakefinder (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Request the proposal be immediately rescinded by original poster - No decision on Wikipedia is final, but the decision to have this article be move to the title "Taiwan" was perhaps the most thoroughly discussed move in WP history. There was careful arbitration, requests for comments, and the entire community was involved. The move was not done suddenly or carelessly and it was the result of years of continued discussion. I don't expect you to read the entire discussion since it is incredibly long, but please look at Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20 and read some of the Final Closing Statement at the top of the page endorsed by three impartial admins. You are welcome to reopen any discussion, but please only do so if you think that you have information which is likely to alter the existing consensus. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I will look at that archive you guys suggested. Could you also look at the Merge proposal at Talk:Republic of China (1912–49)#Merge into Republic of China article?? It's related to the contents of that one and this one. Thanks! Mistakefinder (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Official name of government

While dealing with a nationalist vandal who obviously cannot touch this page because of its semi-protection, but has had no issue with futzing up Taipei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), he seems to assert that the official name of this nation is "Republic of China (Taiwan)" with the parenthetical/disambiguator, because he sees its usage on the website of the President and it's embassies (also seen at File:Taiwanese_Embassy_in_Mbabane.JPG). Does his argument hold any weight as to what this country is called or is he just full of bullshit?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There have been many discussions. WP:COMMONNAME won the day. It's Taiwan. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes but is the official name of the nation "Republic of China (Taiwan)" as he is insisting along with his accusations that I'm a PRC nationalist vandal?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
No idea about the official name. Most people neither know nor care about the official name of most countries. But the allegations are normal. All of us who argued for the name Taiwan for this article had such allegations thrown at us. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Then could you back me up and tell him to shut the fuck up? He's going on and on about "this is the 103rd year of the ROC being independent" now and refusing to acknowledge I'm a white boy from New York.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Also I'm tired of being the only one rolling back his vandalism on Taipei, Holy See, and Foreign relations of Taiwan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48 please help me with this fuckwit before I lose it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's established that this article should use the name "Taiwan" for the topic, but in the discussion that lead to the move while there was discussion about other pages, there was no clear consensus formed about the language that should be used in other pages. The same logic of the move applies in most cases, and so the term "Taiwan" should be used in a similar manner across other pages, but simply citing the discussion is not a way to conclude the matter. On pages where there is clearly some controversy about the wording, it will have to be decided through clear discussion on that page, not this one. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Wikipedia doesn't need that many agonising shitfights. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not advocating that every page which mentions Taiwan should have a naming debate identical in tone and length to the ones that have taken place here. Instead, I'm suggesting that sometimes, on a page like Taipei it may be necessary to have a discussion to decide whether the community agrees that the logic of the move applies there as well. Sometimes those discussion will devolve into political nonsense and name-calling. I'd rather avoid all that, too, but That's my reading of policy, WP culture, and the oft-cited discussion at Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The only way I could agree with that would be if such discussions were constantly overseen by a captive, independent Admin, who would instantly intervene with severe consequences for any of the aforementioned political nonsense and name-calling. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No one is asking you to consent to the discussion. I'm just summarizing the situation. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
...in a very unrealistic and impractical way. the dramas that surround these article need to be stopped, not encouraged. HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
How about this, let's stick to what you, me, and an important majority of this community agree on: we should use the term "Taiwan" for the country and say that it's "officially known as the Republic of China" when necessary. That applies to this article and most Taiwan-related articles. How exactly related conflicts will be avoided or resolved is a matter that perhaps we have a small disagreement about. In either case, editors on this page should pay attention to Taipei, Holy See and other Taiwan-related articles to deal with name-related POV pushing efficiently. I hope that you are right, that drama about such matters can be somehow avoided. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we should use the term "Taiwan" for the country and say that it's "officially known as the Republic of China" when necessary. I have never sought anything else. I just don't want to see idiotic allegations of communist editing thrown around again, anywhere. That's quite unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is Wikipedia coming up with their own names? WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles. Everywhere else, official names can and should be used. The state in question uses "Republic of China (Taiwan)", why is Wikipedia doing something different than what is officially used by the government in question? That's not NPOV.
Since when? If you look at the examples in WP:COMMONNAME, most of the instances in the articles will use the common names whenever the context is clear. For instance, the UK is described by its full name at the beginning and is simply called UK or United Kingdom throughout. Abstractematics (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the article should be using ROC, not Taiwan. UK is short for United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland. The acronym for Republic of China is ROC. Not Taiwan. The common name for the UK, at least here in the US, for the UK is either Britain or England. We don't call Elizabeth II, queen of the UK. We call her the queen of England.
A consensus has emerged from this talk page that "Taiwan" is the common name for this topic. It's not unanimity and consensus can change, but as well as I can understand the thinking of the community on this page, the name is "Taiwan" and the consensus has grown stronger, not weaker over time. You are free to challenge that, but don't expect to change everyone's minds simply by stating matter-of-factly that the common name is ROC and not Taiwan. We should probably post a banner at the top of this talk page to link to the most recent move discussion and summarize the outcome in a sentence, since this comes up pretty much all the time. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why redirect about... =

Why Republic of China redirects to Taiwan? It should stay as Republic of China (all countries listed and described on Wikipedia have their name as Republic of... or anything else). Dadapotato (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

See above #Requested move 13 August 2014. This has been discussed at great length. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's the link to the recently archived discussion. Phlar (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the introduction, where it says "Taiwan is ranked highly in terms of (...), the "ranked highly" link doesn't point to anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:690:2100:1A:221:63FF:FE72:612E (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like that section was removed in [April 2012]. I have edited the link so it now refers to International rankings of Taiwan, which appears to have some issues of its own. Phlar (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2014

Change the first sentence from "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, is a sovereign state in East Asia" to "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, is a state in East Asia."

Hahasnain (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Rationale for that being? I would've thought that the 'state' part of that sentence be much contentious than 'sovereign'. I think it's pretty clear that it rules itself, whether or not it is a state seems to be the hotter topic. Either way this falls outside of a simple edit request. Cannolis (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is RoC different to Kosovo?

I've suggested the following as a new lede sentence:

Taiwan (/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/ ⓘ Chinese: 臺灣 or 台灣; pinyin: Táiwān; see below), officially the Republic of China (ROC; Chinese: 中華民國; pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó), is a partially recognised state in East Asia.

Wikipedia should be consistent and not have bias around the way it describes the ROC. This gives rise to unnecessary controversy. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

To enhance prospect of broad participation, I've posted on each of the Project Pages listed on this page to highlight this discussion. Hopefully if we get better participation, a consensus may emerge. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Support: I support adding 'partially recognized' before 'state' for clarity and consistency with the treatment of other states with limited recognition. Phlar (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Other states with limited recognition, as in PRC and Israel? They are listed on that page.
And @Frenchmalawi: Do you have to revive this whole discussion again right after the previous discussion got archived?
Tell you what. Why don't you provide a working definition of which partially recognized states listed on the above linked page actually count as partially recognized?
As for your statement, I'll give you an argument against it: the countries recognizing Taiwan don't actually recognize Taiwan(ROC), they recognize China(ROC). So it's an inherently inaccurate statement. Instead of trying to sum up everything in one sentence, I think the lead as a whole already describes in detail what its status is and invites further reading. Abstractematics (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Except it's not the same thing. The ROC government claims sovereignty over the mainland, and PRC goverment does the same over Taiwan, so there is not two states with limited recognition called "China", there are two governments with limited recognition in control of a state called "China". A proper analogy would be a government-in-situ vs a government-in-exile, they both claim the same territory, both claim to be national governments, and both may have diplomatic recognition by various external entities, and both have different territories under their control. It's not like the Kosovar government claims sovereignty over Belgrade. Abkhazia does not claim Tblisi as part of its territory. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What the hell? The situation of the ROC is very different from those self/newly-claimed countries. As of above, the PRC is also not recognized by dozens of UN members, don't know why you're changing it here but you should read about some basic background differences before making such change. PhilipxD (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

At least the ROC is a sovereign state from very beginning in the history which even represented China's seat in United Nation for over 30 years (1945-1971), diplomatic recognition switched to PRC by most UN countries that did not make the ROC any less of a statehood. In fact the PRC has never put Taiwan Area under its rule since the regime was found, not even a political secession of an area in the PRC. Was Kosovo even a self-governing entity from Serbia before UN administration? How could you compare two total different cases on the same table? only because Kosovan republic won much more supports from West world but they are afraid of China's political pressure? If you do really concern "bias edit" for all partially diplomatic recognized entities, would you argue the similar heading description on State of Palestine? 1.171.51.216 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think the fact that only a few countries recognize Taiwan's statehood is important enough to merit a mention in the opening paragraph.
@Abstractematics, @Philipxd: The vast majority of UN member states recognize the PRC and Israel, so I don't feel the comparison is valid.
But if the consensus is that Taiwan's 'partial recognition' isn't as important as I imagine, I can live with this. I do agree that it would've been better for @Frenchmalawi to wait for comment on his 'suggestion' before implementing it in the article.
As to whether or not 'sovereign' belongs in front of 'state,' I don't care either way. Phlar (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Such analogies don't really work, since countries with partial recognition are so few and far between, and all with their unique circumstances. For Taiwan, a major argument for different treatment is that it literally functions like any other country and has done so for decades, save for the lack of official relations (and it has unofficial relations that are comprehensive in all but name with many states). On the other hand, it is also unrealistic to pretend that China or Israel is as much a partially recognised state as Taiwan. What about the following compromise:

  • The first sentence remains unchanged (perhaps with the "sovereign state" changed back to "state", until someone changes it again...)
  • The following is added as a second sentence: Due to its political status, it has limited international recognition.

I don't like the compromise, and I don't like the article it links to, but I don't think it's realistic to argue that our current practice is the best we can do under NPOV. I would still strongly oppose using "partially recognised" as a primary description in the first sentence, as doing so goes too far in the other direction (it makes it seem that Taiwan's status and territorial control are under active dispute, whereas in reality it has remained stable for a long time). Lastly, I'm hoping that whatever we decide on this time, it gets allowed to stick for a few months, at least. This keeps coming up, and we just keep rehashing the same points. wctaiwan (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If discussions keep getting rehashed every few months, then a FAQ at the top of the talk page would probably be a good idea. We shouldn't have to respond to every single new editor who stumbles across this page, especially after a fresh consensus has already been made. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So your inquiry is, what is the sharp distinction between those two states? Okay let me make it plain. If you put "partially recognized" on the heading description, undeniably you reflect the present situation that the ROC enjoys lack of diplomatic recognition internationally. However, has the state of the Republic of China always been unrecognized since she was found? As a matter of fact, by the time the PRC displaced China's seat in the UN, the ROC had been an undoubted statehood as globally recognized state by most western countries and UN. In contrast, would you consider the PRC was a non-sovereign state prior to 1970 because of its limited recognition and non-UN member? In the other words, the ROC is not a secessional part of China, which is more like a rival state with the PRC, as relations between North and South Korea, or North and South Vietnam in the history. Yes the ROC is now limited diplomatic recognized which I acknowledge that, but you cannot deny the fact that ROC is sovereign from 1912. That is a big difference with historical status of Kosovo.ILVTW (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

HEY EVERYONE!!!! This is one of the hardest threads to follow that I've come across in a long time, and the main reason is a total confusion of indenting. Could everyone please read WP:INDENT, and stick to it carefully. It helps everyone tell who is responding to whom. Adding the naming of the editor you're responding to at the start of your post would help too. I suspect there are a couple of unsigned posts in the mess above too, but it's such a mess it's hard to be sure. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify.

@Phlar: The proposal here is that Taiwan should be treated just like other states with limited recognition. And I am presenting states with limited recognition - People's Republic of China and State of Israel - that should be treated as such. If we are going by strict definition, there's no reason to backpedal on the proposal. "Vast majority" is still limited, hence why the page includes them. A state either has full or limited recognition, not in between.

But more importantly, I want to stress that we shouldn't get overworked by just the first sentence. It's better to look at the whole paragraph or introduction and see that it covers sufficient information. As long as the introduction 1) defines ROC as a country, 2) explains its scope of official (and unofficial) recognition, and 3) invites further reading in Political Status of Taiwan, that should explain enough. Abstractematics (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I accept your argument that the partial recognition issue is adequately covered in the 3rd & 4th paragraphs of the lead and doesn't require special mention in the 1st paragraph. Phlar (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
All states with limited recognition should be treated consistently. Kosovo has far more recognition than the ROC but it is described differently. We should be consistent. The RoC is no different to the other countries. As for the PRC and Israel, they are UN members. The states that are fair comparators with the ROC are non-UN members. As for " We shouldn't have to respond to every single new editor who stumbles across this page" and attitudes of that kind: this is Wikipedia. Discussion is needed until consensus emerges. There is clearly no consensus. As for the proposition that the position is explained adequately in the article and so doesn't need to be referenced int he lede, again why is RoC different to other non-UN states with limited recognition?It isn't and Wikipedia should be fair and consistent and not just political. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want to treat all states with limited recognition the same, then treat them the same. Don't suddenly change your mind when PRC and Israel come up. "Limited recognition" doesn't mean "few", it means "not full". That's why PRC and Israel are in that page. If you're going to go the practical route - that PRC and Israel are practically accepted by the international community - consider also that Taiwan is practically treated as a separate country from China by many NGOs (such as Economist Intelligence Unit and Freedom House) as well as many governments that have trade offices with Taiwan. Many countries would establish official relations in a heartbeat if China wasn't insistent on the One-China Policy.
As for consensus. The previous discussion was archived a month ago and you're restarting it all over again. By doing this you're inviting the whole discussion to reignite again very soon even after this current talk is resolved. Don't beat a dead horse so soon. It was already pointed out to you last time that the consensus was to compromise on a simple description of "state" and explain the limited recognition in the rest of the lead. It's a neutral, consensus-based, and non-redundant option. The recognition and political status are explained already, why insist on repeating in the first sentence? It's better to describe Taiwan throughout the paragraph instead of cramming it all in the first line. Abstractematics (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

One more point @ILTW:"However, has the state of the Republic of China always been unrecognized since she was found?" etc. Now, I ask, was the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya always unrecognized? No. It was recognised by every one at one time. Today it is recognised by no one. What of it? There is no difference with the ROC. A regime that styled the country as the ROC is not recognised as a government any more by most countries. It is a common feature of civil wars that rival regimes emerge. It doesn't make the ROC any different to the other partially recognised states. Not in any way that matters, that's for sure. It has very limited recognition and is not in the UN. Most of its allies are very poor states that trade recognition for aid. To ignore this in the lede is not positive. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a very POV argument; it shouldn't matter why the dozen countries chose to recognize ROC, because it's their choice and the recognition is valid.
But I'll respond on that point. Why do you think so many countries (such as longtime allies of Taiwan - US, Japan, South Korea, as well as numerous Western democracies) officially recognize PRC? It's because PRC forces them to choose between itself and ROC. Most would like to have relations with both if they could. But since PRC doesn't allow it, they choose a pragmatic compromise - official recognition of PRC but also unofficial relations with Taiwan, ranging from simple trade relations to alliance in all but name. Reasons are because they want mutual economic cooperation with China, open it up globally so that PRC citizens can get at least some interaction with outside, and to keep it less hostile through détente.
You previously called relations with ROC mere handouts but it looks like PRC relations sound far more like handouts to me. I can't say I blame most of these countries though, given the need for a pragmatic approach. It's really the fault of PRC for being stubborn. Abstractematics (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The previous disucssion is at Talk:Taiwan/Archive 23#Partially-recognised in first sentence?. tl;dr is: Not everybody recognises PRC, and PRC doesn't include "partially recognised". Personally, I think it should include "partially recognised" as it's not recognised by the UN or (officially) by any major power. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Abstractematics - The morals, rights, wrongs, politics of what have you are all interesting subjects to chat about in a bar. But the simple fact is that the ROC has limited recognition and should be described just like how we describe Kosovo, North Cyprus, Transnestria, Sahrawi Republic etc. It has less recognition than some of those countries. @h2g2bob - The PRC is a UN member. The ROC is not. That distinguishes the PRC from all other countries featured on Wikipedia that are described as "partially recognised".... There is no valid comparison here. The ROC sits in the same group as places like Kosovo, North Cyprus, Transnestria, Sahrawi Republic etc. This isn't me being subjective, just objective reality. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

State

Again, please avoid any modifier in front of the word "state" in the opening introduction about Taiwan given the controversy everyone has. If someone adds the modifier "sovereign," then in a matter of weeks or months someone else change it to "partially recognized" or "de-facto," and there'll be yet another long argument on this talk page. (And frankly, it disturbs me that the Wikipedia coined the term or created the neologism of "partially recognized state" and zealously applies that to Taiwan in various listings/categories when traditional non-governmental print-based encyclopedias and almanacs have for years avoided putting Taiwan in a separate compartment in the list of countries/states. Even if those encyclopedias/almanacs do note that Taiwan no longer has so many diplomatic relations, they wouldn't downgrade or hide it from the listing of states/countries. Again, note that I use the term "non-governmental." But even then, the CIA World Factbook no longer places Taiwan below the entry of Zimbabwe under its alphabetical listings.) Allentchang (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should be more about facts and citable sources and not about ambiguous terms or making people feel comfortable. The phrase "sovereign state" is better than the word "state" in almost every way because Taiwan's sovereignty is an undisputable fact that have sustained for the past half century from whichever perspective you examine the situation.
I recognize your point that trolls could potentially start engaging in vandalism, but from what you wrote, that seems more like speculation and not actually what would happen or had happened (unless you can show me past wiki editing history regarding vandalism with respect to this particular word). Suppose if they did add in the phrase "partially recognized", I wouldn't necessarily oppose it because it's equally the fact, just not necessarily agree that it should be in the intro.
Even if trolls start engaging in these activities, I don't think we should cave in to them since what they are saying is ultimately false. This attitude of caving in would drive away even more Wikipedians as the resulting work would be mediocre and untruthful.
Hence, I propose the use of "sovereign state" because its the clearer and factual version, especially for the vast number of readers who are unfamiliar with Taiwan or with cross strait relations, including people who are thinking about traveling to the island and is confused if the island is under Communist control like Hong Kong or Macau. --Axtxqk (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that just calling it a state, country, or equivalent gets the point across. Adding the word sovereign just makes it sound gratified and indisputable, and unnecessarily draws attention.
If anything, we should go the other way and remove the "sovereign" adjective from other articles when it's redundant - such as in the PRC article - especially when the state's recognition is challenged. Abstractematics (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just me but I still think there is something wrong with this word and the existing solution doesn't give a satisfactory answer. The word State as shown in its wiki article, has several meanings, in which one of the definition states "...or sub-entity (such as an autonomous territory of a country)". This is unsuitable given Taiwan's unique situation. In fact, given Taiwan's situation, it's better to be explicit than implicit. The phrase sovereign state is not simply a gratifying adjective combined with the word "state", but a phrase with a specific pre-defined meaning, the current article already links to sovereign state. In addition, there is still assumption this would draw unnecessary attention, but such phenomenon has not yet been proven to be case at this point.
I would propose, perhaps as a workaround to resolve our differences, that we go with the clearer and more factual term sovereign state and only return to this discussion if there are people start frequently editing the phrase or engaging in vandalism. At this point, none of these events have happended. --Axtxqk (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
According to a recently archived discussion, the label "state" was a compromise solution. So this has come up before.
I feel that in terms of government, the default meaning of state would be an independent country/nation of some kind. And several countries style themselves as "State of (name)". If it was a sub-entity like a federated state, then you could tell that by context since the lead description would show which nation or entity it belongs to. The full phrase of "sovereign state" would only be needed in certain instances where the article is talking about something specific, maybe with some degree of scrutiny with regards to international law. Abstractematics (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To avoid controversy, we should be consistent. There should be a modifier before the word "state". The modifier should be "partially recognised". The last time I checked, this was consistent with how Wikipedia treats all other states with limited recognition. The ROC should be no exception. The omission is controversial and unprecedented and suggests bias. Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Define "limited recognition". China is not recognized by 22 other UN members, Israel is not recognized by 32 other UN members, several other UN members lack recognition from one other UN member (different ones in each case). NONE of these is qualified as "partially recognized". If you mean to say "how Wikipedia treats all other states not members of the UN" then say so. A state exists whether the UN or any other state recognizes it (otherwise where would the first state have come from with no other state to recognize it). --Khajidha (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Republic of China (1912-1949) in hatnote.

There's no need to include Republic of China (1912-1949) in the hatnote. It's not a plausible search term when someone searches for Taiwan. It's one of many possible uses of Republic of China but only one of many. That's why there's a disambiguation page Republic of China (disambiguation). There's no need to pick out one particular use of it, out of so many.

--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Election articles

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan § Election articles
 – wctaiwan (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2014

I want to add/edit the opinions within Taiwan section to update it with the recent polling data taken prior to the recent Taiwan elections.

http://www.nownews.com/n/2013/06/04/257828

RAW DATA: http://i.imgur.com/wdzxND3.jpg

As you can see there has been a significant change in public opinion over the last few years as the national identity shifts.

Please take the time to consider my request as this polling data is a valuable source for people wishing to learn about Taiwan.

Also it should be noted that I have no affiliation with either party in Taiwan. I have never voted in Taiwan. Nor am I a Taiwanese citizen.

Thankyou

edit:

Ok I want to add a paragraph in the #Opinions_within_Taiwan that says some form of the following:

Polling of Taiwanese citizens taken since 1992 has shown an increase in the percentage of people who identify as Taiwanese, and since 1994 there has been a decrease in the percentage of people who identify as chinese. As of polling in 2014, 60.4% of people identify as Taiwanese, 32.7% identify as Taiwanese and Chinese, and 3.5% of people identify as Chinese.

Maybe some of you can help me make this paragraph worthy of wikipedia. I just want people to know that the national identity has been shifting to a Taiwanese identify for 10 years, and it doesn't show signs of slowing down, or leveling out. Hows that sound?

Rnw159 (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rnw159: I don't know Chinese and may unable to help with sources. It is also very much unclear that what changes you actually want to bring into this article. Please propose your changes in "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

In 1938 there were 309,000 Japanese settlers in Taiwan.[53] After World War II, most of the Japanese were repatriated to Japan.[citation needed] “In 1938, there were 309,000 Japanese settlers in Taiwan.[53] After World War II, most of the Japanese were repatriated to Japan.[citation needed]”

A year later Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law on the main island of Taiwan (martial law was lifted on Penghu in 1979, Matsu island in 1992 and Kinmen island in 1993). “A year later, Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law on the main island of Taiwan (martial law was lifted on Penghu in 1979, Matsu island in 1992 and Kinmen island in 1993).”

Debtang1019 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done  Philg88 ♦talk 06:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please remove parochial reference to the area of Delaware + Maryland

Stating that the area of Taiwan is similar to the area of Maryland is not helpful. Most of the world has no idea how big Maryland is, and there does not seem to be an important relationship between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werqweuitrequiui (talk • contribs) 08:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a statement that is easily verifiable in reliable sources, and is helpful to readers in the largest country where English is read. A comparison to the area of some other country would also be helpful. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I bet there are more English readers in China than in the US. How about the following compromise? ...making it about the same size as the U.S. state of Indiana, larger than Belgium and smaller than Switzerland. -- Phlar (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
"I bet there are more English readers in China than in the US." You'd lose that bet. --Golbez (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
How do you figure? For at least the past decade, English has been a required course for all Chinese secondary-school students. In my experience, most Chinese high school graduates can read English fairly well. Over 10 years, China graduates quite a few high school students. To me, it's a good bet that their numbers exceed the English-literate population of the US. I'm not interested in trying to prove it, though. Phlar (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It does seem silly. As a non-US Wikipedian although I've visited the US three times I have no idea where Maryland, or Indiana, is and certainly no idea of their sizes. Frankly any comparison seems pointless. You can get a good idea of its size from a map, or you can use the exact size as given, then do your own comparisons with whatever you find most interesting/relevant. To me comparing it to (other) provinces of China would make more sense but most English speakers people know few if any of those by name or size.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
After further thought, I agree that it's a bit silly. If the point is to tell the reader how Taiwan's geographic area compares to that of the countries of the world, why not refer to Taiwan's ranking, currently 137th? Phlar (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been to the US many times and also do not feel very familiar with the size of Maryland. Totocol (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Changed to: ...making it the world's 137th-largest country/dependency, smaller than Switzerland and larger than Belgium. Phlar (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Add official information regarding Taiwan not belong to China (Neither ROC or PRC)

In 1895, military defeat forced China's Qing Dynasty to cede Taiwan to Japan. Taiwan came under Chinese Nationalist control after World War II. Following the communist victory on the mainland in 1949, 2 million Nationalists fled to Taiwan and established a government using the 1947 constitution drawn up for all of China. Beginning in the 1950s, the ruling authorities gradually democratized and incorporated the local population within the governing structure. This process expanded rapidly in the 1980s. In 2000, Taiwan underwent its first peaceful transfer of power from the Nationalist (Kuomintang or KMT) to the Democratic Progressive Party. Throughout this period, the island prospered and became one of East Asia's economic "Tigers." The dominant political issues continue to be management of sensitive relations between Taiwan and China - specifically the question of Taiwan's eventual status - as well as domestic priorities for economic reform and growth.

CIA World Factbook Taiwan Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas Tsai (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is already thoroughly covered under History and Political and legal status. Phlar (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So Taiwan is not officially the Republic of China, a sovereign state in East Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas Tsai (talk • contribs) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take sides within disputes, it merely describes the dispute. Wikipedia also does not accept unpublished synthesis of sourced content or original research, meaning that the burden of evidence for providing sources which are non-fringe is on you, and that any changes you make maintain due weight. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, though the article used to be called "Republic of China" because of its common-name it was moved to "Taiwan" (something I still oppose but won't go in to), the government situated in Taibei is the Chinese government and the Chinese government hasn't officially changed its name to "Taiwan" so the Republic of China is still the main holder of the Provinces of Taiwan and Fujian, municipalities of Gaoxiong, Xintaibei, taibei, taizhong, tainam, toi-baak, and D'ao-Yuen. Until this official status changes the article should refer to them as territories of the Republic of China as regardless if any Taiwanese or Mainland-Chinese group might claim them, they are still occupied by China.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
"D'ao-Yuen" :-)) Phlar (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
What are you proposing to change? The lead already refers to them as territories of the ROC, doesn't it? The Republic of China, originally based in mainland China, now governs the island of Taiwan, which makes up over 99% of its territory, as well as Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and other minor islands. Phlar (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My Suggestion: Taiwan (Listeni/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/ Chinese: 臺灣 or 台灣; pinyin: Táiwān; see below), formerly known as "Formosa"[1], is currently administered by the authorities on Taiwan[2][3].


Short-form name Long-form name FIPS Code (see note 2) Capital
Taiwan (see note 6) (no long-form name) TW Taipei

Note 6: Claimed by both the Government of the People's Republic of China and the authorities on Taiwan. Administered by the authorities on Taiwan. (see note 3)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas Tsai (talk • contribs) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You can make fallacious arguments based on the CIA World Factbook all you like, but you're merely displaying ignorance of reality. See this passport? Have a good look at what is clearly written on it.
No, your suggestion is unacceptable, because it does not conform with WP:NPOV policy. Your suggestion exclusively showcases the POV of the Pan-green coalition, and thus is not neutral. You are too focused on the CIA World Factbook citation, however you cannot propose to make changes based exclusively on one reference, especially if the reference in question is a partisan one. Saying that the Wikipedia article needs to be changed and have all mentions of "ROC" removed because of the CIA World Factbook is a completely fallacious argument, since you're ignoring the whole plethora of other third-party reliable sources who do use the term ROC to refer to the government situated in Taipei. Furthermore, the CIA World Factbook does not use the term "ROC" because the United States cannot recognise the ROC due to the One China policy; it is an aspect of United States foreign policy, and not de facto geopolitics. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Another Suggestion: Taiwan (Listeni/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/ Chinese: 臺灣 or 台灣; pinyin: Táiwān; see below), formerly known as "Formosa"[4], is currently administered by the authorities on Taiwan[5], recognized by the United States as the Republic of China (ROC; Chinese: 中華民國; pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó) prior to January 1, 1979, according to Taiwan Relation Act[6].


The President- having terminated governmental relations between the United States and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas Tsai (talk • contribs) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so focused on the United States? There is no need to mention the United States within the lede at all; no other country article does this. This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, and we write our content based on what is covered within mainstream academia, and not based on the rhetoric of foreign policy. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) Formosa was occupied by Allied power based on General Order No. 1[7],whcih was prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of U.S. military forces and approved by the President of the United States on 17 August 1945. (2) Formosa (Taiwan) and the Penghu Islands was under military occupation and still under Japanese sovereignty until 1952, when the Treaty of San Francisco took effect[8]. In Article 23(a), United States of America is the principal occupying Power, of the following States, namely ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas Tsai (talk • contribs) 09:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And again you're forming original WP:SYNTH based on sources which don't imply what you intend on implying. Nowhere within those sources does it imply that the ROC is not real, that's your own synthesised original research. I really don't understand your obsession with the CIA World Factbook and the US Department of State. If you can only provide two partisan sources which only use Taiwan, I can provide twenty or thirty that use ROC, so what's the point of stubbornly arguing? I get the feeling that I'm talking to a wall, or in other words, 對牛彈琴.
Seriously, you see that picture to the right hand side? You see that passport. Read it, and read it very carefully. Read what it says. Now, answer my question: What does the passport say? --benlisquareT•C•E 09:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Finally, I have a strong suspicion that you do not speak English at all. All you have been doing is copypasting quotations from websites, and writing in Google Translate English. If you are incapable of, or incompetent in communicating with other people in English, on a website which revolves around mutual cooperation and contribution amongst English-language speakers, then I suggest going to the Chinese Wikipedia and contributing over there. The last thing I need is wasting my time talking to someone who does not understand what I say, and continues to behave like a broken record spamming quotations from the CIA World Factbook. 如果您不會英文，請不要來英文維基百科作貢獻。這裡有溝通水平要求，如果我寫的你完全都看不懂那這就太沒意思了。 --benlisquareT•C•E 09:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Lemma

There had been an exhausting, long-lasting discussion in the german WP about that topic, which eventually lead to renaming the article. The taiwanese/national chinese government increasingly uses the term Republic of China (Taiwan) to name the country in english texts. Just think abiut that...--Antemister (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would personally oppose such a change. The argument that Taiwan is universally used in contemporary English-language sources resonates with me, as does the argument that having the article at Taiwan causes all sorts of issues when discussing the history, but "Republic of China (Taiwan)" has never been more than an uneasy compromise. wctaiwan (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There was an exhausting, long lasting discussion here too, which eventually lead to renaming the article. It was renamed to "Taiwan". The discussion is archived here: Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

Please change

[[Image:2011 Women's British Open - Tseng Yani (7) cropped.jpg|upright||thumb|right|Yani Tseng with the 2011 Women's British Open trophy]]

to

[[Image:2011 Women's British Open - Tseng Yani (7) cropped.jpg|upright||thumb|right|[[Yani Tseng]] with the 2011 Women's British Open trophy]]

for reference to existing wiki page about the person. H4nek (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done although it would have been easier if you had asked for the change, rather than playing "spot the difference" - Arjayay (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding history of the Republic of China to "history"??

This is the article about the nation named the Republic of China, but the history section barely talks about anything about the Republic of China except those after it moved to Taiwan. Which is absolutely weird, if the article is going to talk only about the island of Taiwan, the info-box shouldn't say this page is about the Republic of China.  PhilipxD  11:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Immediately under the History section heading, there is a link to the History of the Republic of China article:
Main articles: History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China
I believe putting the "Republic of China" name in the infobox was thoroughly discussed in the past. Either way it's a compromise. Phlar (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I was researching Taiwan without any prior knowledge of the existence of "Republic of China", and spent a few seconds pondering the first and second mentions of it since they aren't hotlinks. It would be helpful to the ignorant like me if a hotlink appeared earlier in the page.Helloweb (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2015

Republic of China Marine Corps frogmen, officially the ROCMC Amphibious Reconnaissance and Patrol Unit is the most popular and famous special force in Taiwan. Die to their training lessons, especially the “Road to Heaven”, where one has to crawl a distance of 50m over coral stone while naked.

Punchmonster (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done - although your request was not clear - this is not a "spot the difference" competition.
Please request future changes in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". - Arjayay (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015

Please remove "and / or Chinese" from the Demonym. A demonym is a name given to natives or residents of a certain or specific place, rather than the region to which this place belongs. This is an article on Taiwan. Be it a part of China or not, the demonym should be Taiwanese. Some people might think Taiwanese are Chinese, but it is because ROC claims all China to be its territory, not because Taiwan is equal to China. To say that the demonym can be Chinese is like saying that the demonym for the people of Turkey can be European. Lysimachi (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Not done You will need to gain proper community consensus on this talk page first before any changes can be made, given the politically controversial nature of your request.

    Also keep in mind that your comparison with Turkey and Europe is a non sequitur argument that relies on a logical fallacy of false equivalence, you will need better reasoning in order for your desired change to be made. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain what is the the "politically controversial nature" of the request? It would be very helpful if you could also point out its relationship with whether Chinese can be the demonym for the people of Taiwan or not.
The reasoning is the definition of demonym itself: a demonym is a name given to natives or residents of a certain or specific place. In this article, the specific place is Taiwan. Lysimachi (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the issue is confused by Chinese being an ethnic group as well, and that nearly all Taiwanese are of Han Chinese ethnicity. But take a look at Taiwan#National Identity - the Taiwanese certainly use both terms themselves. Unless you can make the case that a demonym cannot be self-determined, I would oppose this change Cannolis (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} is not used for this, please stop abusing this template. Please read on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, you need to gain talk page consensus for your changes, since you are attempting to change the status quo. You will need to demonstrate to the community that your edits are valid, and nobody is entitled to make radical changes to article content based on their own personal opinions on the matter. On this talk page, you've only demonstrated to me that you have an opinion—you have not demonstrated that your opinion is actual fact. Do you have reliable citations that back up your claims? Have you made an effort to explain in a rational, objective and logical manner why your changes are necessary? Simply stating your opinion is neither rational, nor objective. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I support the request.
A demonym is a name based on the place.
Let's suppose for a moment that hypothetically all people of Taiwan were brown-haired — you wouldn't claim that "brunette" was a valid demonym would you? Just because (some people might claim) "Chinese" is a valid description of the people, that does not mean it equates to a demonym!
And for the record, I disagree that "Chinese" is an ethnicity; it's like saying "Indian" is an ethnicity. Both are simplified expediencies that relate mostly to politics rather than anything else.
(The only possible way that "Chinese" can be the demonyn is for the user to have the view that Taiwan belongs to (is a substituent of) China. Some people may have that view, but it will surely not be WP:NPOV unless clearly marked as a controversial, non-standard usage. And even then it is quite unhelpful in an article about Taiwan, because then surely "Asian" and "Earth-dweller" would be just as valid as "Chinese"!)
—DIV (120.23.227.88 (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC))
Cannolis: Thanks for your reponse! As you noted, some people may consider Chinese as an ethnic group. The thing is the request is about the demonym for the people of Taiwan. Ethnic group and demonym are different things. The definition of the former in Wikipedia/Wiktionary is: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience."/"A group of people who identify with one another, especially on the basis of national, cultural, or religious grounds." The definition of demonym is: "A demonym /ˈdɛmənɪm/ is a name given to natives or residents of a certain or specific place."/"A name for an inhabitant or native of a specific place that is derived from the name of the place." I don't known of any rule as to whether demonym can be self-determined or not, but according to the definitions, a demonym is given to people of a specific place and is derived from the name of the place. Chinese is not the demonym for the people of Taiwan because it is not given specifically to that place.
120.23.227.88: Thanks for your support! Regarding your notion "the only possible way that "Chinese" can be the demonyn is for the user to have the view that Taiwan belongs to (is a substituent of) China", according to the definition of demonym, Chinese would not be the demonym for Taiwan, even if a user thinks Taiwan is a part of China, because Chinese is not the name for an inhabitant of the specific place Taiwan (it's China instead) and because 'Chinese' is not derived from 'Taiwan'. Here's a list of demonyms for cities and the countries they belong to. In most if not all cases, even though the city surely is a part of the country (e.g., Italy), the demonym for a city (e.g., Amalfi) is not the demonym for the country (Italian), but one that specifically refers to the inhabitants of the city and one that is generally derived from the city name. Lysimachi (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
If you look at thedemonym article, it says that they are usually, but not always, derived from the name of a place. In fact, if you look at the demonym#irregular forms section, it shows a few examples of demonyms which are not derived from the name of the city/state (e.g. Hoosiers for Indiana). The demonym#cultural problems section, also actually discusses the this Chinese vs. Taiwanese issue briefly. Cannolis (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Cannolis: You are absolutely correct that demonym may not always be directly derived from the place name. However, as your example of hoosier suggests, a demonym is used specifically for people of a place: "Hoosier /ˈhuːʒər/ is the official demonym for a resident of the U.S. state of Indiana." It is not used for people of Indiana plus some other places. In the demonym#cultural problems section where Taiwan is mentioned, it is very interesting that it also mentions One-China Policy, according to which "all the countries recognizing the ROC recognize it as the sole legitimate representative of all of China and not just the island of Taiwan and other islands which it controls." So the Chinese mentioned in that section refers to people of a China that includes Taiwan. Note that the section does not mention demonym at all; instead, it says "the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China officially adhere to the One-China policy, use "Chinese" to describe their nationals". In this respect, that section does not seem to have much, if any, to do with the demonym of Taiwan, but is rather a discussion on the national identity of Taiwanese and how ROC might name its nationals. For the purpose of this discussion, it would be really helpful if you could provide any citation that says any person/government has said that the demonym for the people of Taiwan is/can be Chinese. Lysimachi (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not support the request. (I changed my mind on 26 May, see below.) The footnote after "and / or Chinese" already gives a clear justification for including "Chinese": Although the territories controlled by the ROC imply that the demonym is "Taiwanese", some consider that it is "Chinese" due to the claims of the ROC over all of China. Taiwanese people have various opinions regarding their own national identity. The confusion described in the Taiwan#national identity section of this article is another reason to include both demonyms. Phlar (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Phlar: Thanks for your reponse! Could you find any citation for the sentence in the footnote: "some consider that it [the demonym] is "Chinese" due to the claims of the ROC over all of China"? That would be very helpful!Lysimachi (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Lysimachi: No, I don't know of any citations that relate to the demonym per se. The table Percentage of Taiwanese residents who consider themselves Taiwanese, Chinese or Taiwanese and Chinese according to various surveys (in this article) does address some Taiwan citizen's self-identification as "Chinese", and it does include citations. Phlar (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Phlar: Me neither, I couldn't find any literature in support of Chinese being a demonym for Taiwan. Thanks for your information on that table, which is clearly one that addresses national identity ("National identity is a person's identity and sense of belonging to one state or to one nation"), rather than demonym ("A demonym /ˈdɛmənɪm/ is a name given to natives or residents of a certain or specific place"). No one in the surveys who identifies himself as a Chinese is saying that 'Chinese' is a name given specifically to the people of Taiwan. Lysimachi (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a distinction between the two - If they are calling themselves Chinese, Taiwanese, or both, then those names are being used by the people of Taiwan to describe the people of Taiwan. Cannolis (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
1. Could you provide any citation that says any person/government has said that Chinese is a demonym for the people of Taiwan? 2. It is erroneous to say "those names are being used by the people of Taiwan to describe the people of Taiwan." The names were chosen by a person surveyed to describe herself or himself, not the people of Taiwan. Please take a look at the surveys (e.g., citation 153). The survey question was: Do you think you are Taiwanese, Chinese, or both?. The question was not: What do you think best describes the people of Taiwan? (And of course, the question was not: Do you think the demonym for the people of Taiwan is ~?) 3. Despite the given definitions, if it is still difficult for you to see a difference between national identity and demonym other than their spellings, please take a look at this survey that asks a Scot (the demonym for the people of Scotland) what s/he thinks best describes her- or himself. There are Scots who think they are Scottish, British, and 'equally Scottish and British'. There are even surveys in which some Scots chose 'European'. But take a look at the Scotland page (where it certainly says at Scotland#Demographics that the Scots use both Scottish and British themselves), neither British nor European is listed as a demonym. 4. Verifiability (WP:V) is a core policy of Wikipedia. If you cannot provide evidence (other than saying you "don't see a distinction between the two") that the demonym is the same as national identity, please provide a citation for the sentence in note d or any citation that says any person/government has said that the demonym for the people of Taiwan is/can be Chinese. Lysimachi (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've thought about it and I think I am persudaded by the argument that demonym and national identity are distinct. Even if you consider Taiwan a sub-national entity, "Chinese" isn't a name used to refer specifically to people on Taiwan. We don't list "American" as a demonym for California; likewise, even assuming Taiwanese people are also Chinese, we probably shouldn't list "Chinese" as a demonym in the infobox here. wctaiwan (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank God that someone else understands the box is for demonym not for national identity. Lysimachi (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: OK, after further consideration, I finally see Lysimachi's point (yes, I'm a bit slow; thanks for your patience). The demonym is simply the name that refers specifically to residents of a place.
- To cite an example similar to wctaiwan's, people from Hawaii are called "Hawaiians." They can also be called "Americans," since Hawaii is part of the USA, but we do not claim that "American is a demonym for residents of Hawaii." And furthermore, the demonym for people of Honolulu is listed as "Honolulans," and we don't list "Hawaiians" or "Americans" as alternative demonyms, even though "Honolulans" is a sub-group of "Hawaiians," which is a sub-group of "Americans."
- Therefore, people from Taiwan are "Taiwanese"; it is incorrect to list "Chinese" as a demonym because "Chinese" refers to a much larger group than just "people of Taiwan."
- Phlar (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! Lysimachi (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Name of time zone

I propose changing it back to just "National Standard Time". No source refers to it as "ROC National Standard Time", and it's abundantly clear what country "National" refers to in the context of this article. wctaiwan (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. And I would also support removing "ROC" from "National Standard Time" on the pages for Chiayi City, Keelung, Hsinchu, Tainan, Taipei, Taichung, Kaohsiung and New Taipei City, all of which recently underwent similar edits. Phlar (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree. ROC seems a bit redundant in this context.Lysimachi (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit war over the introduction

There's been a deluge of edits and reversals over the lead paragraph the past few days. Szqecs, could you first explain what you are trying to accomplish with your changes here, on the talk page, so we can discuss and try to achieve consensus before you actually make them? From your comments under the "sovereign state" topic above, I had thought you only wanted to change that one term. But it seems you have much more sweeping changes in mind. Please help us to understand. Phlar (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Phlar For my first edit I changed "sovereign state" to "island country", added a sentence that says Taiwan is the name of the island but also used to refer to R.O.C., and changed the order of some sentences. The former was discussed already and the other two don't seem controversial. Philipxd reverted it whatsoever without stating the reason and all I did was revert it back. ILVTW stated that defining Taiwan as an island nation is controversial as the ROC has not renounced its constitutional territorial claims over Mainland China. I didn't make edits since. Taiwan is a de facto island country and it's what people perceive anyways. Being technical is pointless. Szqecs (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Capital

Is there any truth to the statement that Nanking is or was considered the capital of ROC/Taiwan? It is mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_of_the_Netherlands#Other_capitals_that_are_not_the_seat_of_government but this article doesn't seem to have any mention. Maybe it's historical, or a minority view? I notice the article quotes a "clarification" from the government about the capital, which seems to suggest that if a "clarification" was needed, there must have been some confusion/uncertainty. —DIV (120.23.227.88 (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

It's historical (and perhaps a view still held by a small minority). See [9] for an example of the current (pro-China) government saying the capital is Taipei. wctaiwan (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
ROC's history only dates back to 1911, it's only a government name for China like Yuan, Ming or Qing dynasties. Nanjing was indeead in the capital of the ROC, but not of Taiwan because the latter is an island. This is a fact that is not disputed. The capital was moved to Beijing again after the Communists won the civil war. The ROC retreated to Taiwan and established their government there, but one opinion is that mainland China still belongs to the ROC because the Communists are criminals. So PRC and ROC both claim Taiwan and the mainland. --2.245.242.24 (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, that was the capital of PRC not ROC. I'm not sure that today's ROC constitution still "claims" the mainland provinces in any concrete way since constitutional amendments in 1991. The current capital of the ROC is Taipei. 24.14.89.219 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Waishengren

When did Waishengren become an ethnicity? And why does it redirect to the PRC "Mainland Chinese" Wikipedia page? Waishengren is a political, at most, societal designation, not an ethnic one. Hokkien and Hakka are of Han ethnicity, it should read 14% Other Han for Waishengren. 159.53.174.141 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. The existing footnote explains why Waishengren is listed as an ethnicity.
Waishengren usually refers to people who immigrated from mainland China to Taiwan after 1945, also the Chinese refugees migrated to Taiwan due to the Chinese Civil War, and to their descendants born in Taiwan. It does not include citizens of the People's Republic of China who more recently moved to Taiwan.
And the redirect goes to the Mainlanders in Taiwan section of the "Mainland Chinese" page, which seems quite appropriate to me.
Phlar (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Ma Ying-jeou is of Hakka ancestry. Does he belong in the Hakka category or the waishengren category? If the first, that's fine. If the latter, it would seem to be discriminatory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.143 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the two categories are mutually exclusive. Phlar (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
But it's represented as such. 70+14+14+2.3 = ~100%.
I see your point. Ma could be both Hakka and Waishengren, if his family came after 1945. And any of the "waishengren" could also be Han, Hakka, or Hokkien. Therefore, it seems that the Waishengren category doesn't belong in the list of "Ethnic Groups." Phlar (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"sovereign state"

I don't take a position on this issue, but whether Taiwan/ROC is a sovereign state is unquestionably a matter of POV. By what standard has it been decided that Taiwan qualifies? If there is a global Wikipedia convention governing which polities are so classified, can we make that clear? The Wikipedia page on Sovereign States cites four competing theories; effectively adopting one or more (and rejecting others) is inherently POV. I'd be interested in the thoughts of others on this topic. Jmedlong (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. Taiwan satisfies all four. Szqecs (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The norm you cite is contested. It is known as the Montevideo Convention standard, and only countries in the Americas (and not all of those) have adopted these rules. And although some claim the Montevideo Convention only codified customary international law, the fact is that plenty of countries (including the PRC) have continuously rejected these norms, which means those countries are not bound by them even if we assume that these are customary international law norms. At the very least, avoiding POV requires taking note of the ROC's contested status and making note of the standards by which the ROC is considered sovereign or not.Jmedlong (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Taiwan does not satisfy the four criteria for sovereignty. Some people would argue that the "Republic of China" on Taiwan meets all of the Montevideo Convention's criteria for statehood. However, after doing an objective overview of laws of war studies, and eliminating any POV bias, a number of problems immediately become apparent. In fact, all of the ROC's "qualifying criteria" are phony. PERMANENT POPULATION: The native Taiwanese population was mass-naturalized as ROC citizens in 1946, based on the false premise of "Taiwan Retrocession Day," and in direct violation of the Hague Convention's stipulations regarding the treatment of the populace of occupied territory. DEFINED TERRITORY: The ROC exercises effective territorial control over Formosa and the Pescadores, but there has been no official transfer of title. GOVERNMENT: The ROC appears to have a government, but it is a government in exile, and when conducting its FOREIGN RELATIONS it still asserts that it is the legitimate government of China, although from a legal and historical standpoint such an assertion is totally untrue. 206.225.134.176 (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a bit of misunderstandings on your part. The article may serves as the country information on Taiwan, but the name of the article is chosen to be "Taiwan" and not "ROC" (Taiwan here refers to the common name for the sate that governs it, and not a geographical region). There was actually an extensive Wiki discussion regarding if the article should be re-directed as "ROC" and was voted down overwhelmingly due to WP:COMMONNAME. I agree with you that the ROC is an illegitimate regime; however, it is definitely acceptable to refer to Taiwan as the common name for the sovereign state that govern the island because it is how Taiwan has operated for decades and how most people refer it. The discussion are over at Talk:Taiwan/Archive_20 and Talk:Taiwan/Archive_23. Talk:Taiwan/Archive_20 actually resulted in one of the most discussed topic on Wikipedia, even with a Wikipedia admin chimed in on the issue. Axtxqk (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The ROC never "occupied" Taiwan. Japan occupied Taiwan after bullying the Qing dynasty in a war of aggression into signing an unfair treaty. The ROC, as the successor state to the Qing dynasty, reversed this occupation by defeating Japan in 1945 and reintegrating Taiwan and its people into the mother country.108.131.127.169 (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that identifying Taiwan as a "sovereign state" in the first sentence is misleading, given the controversy over sovereignty, which is discussed in several places throughout the body of the article ("sovereign" or "sovereignty" appears about 20 times in the body). I would support deleting "sovereign" from the first sentence, and changing the link from Sovereign state to State (polity). The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the lead already discuss Taiwan's limited international recognition and the cross-straits issues, so I don't think it's necessary to add "partially recognized" or any other qualifier before state. And I don't think many readers would confuse "state" (meaning "polity") with "Federated state." Phlar (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • That article doesn't really adequately address the state as a political entity (it seems to mostly focus on the social aspects). I would rather just delink if people aren't OK with linking sovereign state. (I'd prefer going with country rather than state, but people have objected to that before.) And I'm really rather tired of drive-by commenters insisting that a distinction must be made between the modern ROC and Taiwan (despite the fact that basically no Anglophone news source does so), that the ROC's current claims to all of China are of any significance, or that the constitution somehow trumps reality or what the government does in practice. wctaiwan (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The lead paragraph of the State (polity) article focuses on political meanings of the word "state." From the first sentence: A state is an organized political community living under a single system of government. I think a link to this article would make it pretty clear that we're identifying Taiwan as a political "state." Phlar (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Franc007She: I disagree with identifying Taiwan as a "sovereign state". The Republic of China is a sovereign state of course but Taiwan is just a province of the Republic of China. In the legal theory, Taiwan was back to China in the 1945 and had not declared its independence from the nation of China, either ROC or PRC as its representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franc007She (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello to all. My first post here. I have been involved in a similar discussion at Talk:Kosovo whereby sovereignty has been explored and challenged, etc. though I myself am not sure where I stand on these matters since it appears there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes sovereignty. I am aware of the policy that a sovereign state should be able to represent itself in dealing with other sovereign states, but if neither the first nor the second are recognised by anyone else that can be awkward (such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland signing a bilateral agreement). Obviously I see the need for ROC and PRC to be presented like for like in their ledes since they remain rival entities to claim the whole of China, with PRC having size and status advantage, and ROC having historical advantage. But my question is this: China is recognised by the entire world, only there is a split as to which entity is recognised. Shouldn't that mean that China per se is the sovereign state rather than PRC and ROC being two sovereign states? --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Please don't compare to Kosovo. This is an entirely different matter. I don't understand what you mean by "the ROC has historical advantage". The PRC is not recognized in all countries. --2.245.220.128 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I would support Szqecs's view on this issue. If China is a sovereign state, there is no reason why Taiwan is not one. Lysimachi (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, first time readers wouldn't care much for the use of the term, so it might as well be changed to country.Szqecs (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Lysimachi and Szqecs, either island country or sovereign state is acceptable. In reading through the comments, it's clear that some people don't seem to understand the difference between recognition and sovereignity; they are distinct things. While recognition is a subjective diplomatic view expressed by a particular state (and not all states express the same view; it is primarily determined by if the states have chose to exchange setting up embassies with each other), sovereignity is a rather observable objective fact. Sovereignity can be observed and determined by how other foreign nations conduct matters with respect to the island nation, including arm sales and joint military exercises, neither of which a dependent territory can conduct. Based on this, if we momentarily disregard what China is verbally saying about Taiwan, China itself is already in practice treating the island as a sovereign state. With regard to the phrase "partially recognized", it has been discussed previously numerous times (see Talk Archive) and was rejected due to being subjective and unfit in the introduction. Axtxqk (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue isn't in Taiwan (the island) as a sovereign country, but to fit the political ideology that "Taiwan" is a country independent from the Republic of China, personally I think that it should read more like:
The Republic of China (commonly referred to as Taiwan) is a sovereign nation.
As that wouldn't fit any Taiwanese independence propagandists agendas, and would then apply to WP:NEUTRALITY as it recognizes that the Republic of China is the official name of the state without introducing it as "Taiwan" (as this is an article on the political entity and not the geographical entity thus "island country"), and by disputing its sovereignty the discussion isn't about Republic of China Vs. Taiwan, or Republic of China Vs. People's Republic of China but about Taiwan Vs. the PRC. The article should've never changed its name from Republic of China in the first place as it's about a political entity and for the same reason that we don't call Ho Chi Minh City "Saigon" (despite it being the WP:COMMONNAME) we should've left this article as "Republic of China", the One China policy is not a stance on neutrality but bias for either one China or the other, and by renaming this article as "Taiwan" the neutrality was effectively broken, but for a long time the Constantinople article didn't cover the Ottoman period either so perspectives can always change.
--Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

While the Republic of China unarguably ADMINISTERS the island of Taiwan plus surrounding islands as well as small portions of Fuijan Province, to declare it a "sovereign state" is a logical fallacy. We can look at this issue from a purely democratic perspective that is neither biased nor misleading. In order for an entity to be considered a country, it should receive some degree of recognition in the international community. Sadly, Taiwan falls extremely short of this standard - only 22 countries recognize Taiwan. Therefore, even from a completely unbiased and objective standpoint, I genuinely fail to see why Taiwan should be given this title. Furthermore, please take a look at the Wikipedia page for Kosovo and Palestine, COUNTRIES that have received a majority of worldwide recognition (regardless of the US perspective). Neither of these pages declare these entities as "sovereign states", rather they are declared a "partially-recognized state" and dejure sovereign state respectively. Seeing as both of these states meet the sovereignty requirement at a higher standard than Taiwan, it is logically fallible to call Taiwan a "sovereign state", as it lacks the amount of international recognition that Kosovo and Palestine receives. I will also reiterate to all Wikipedia editors to please edit in an objective manner, as this is an international community rather than an American community. Therefore, please do not impress any American political standpoints into this article, as that would severely discredit the neutrality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.21.189 (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. To be a country all that is needed is 1) land, 2) people living on that land, and 3) an administration controlling that land. That is all. The opinions of outsiders are totally irrelevant. No matter what China, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Kenya, New Zealand, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Albania or anywhere else say about it the fact remains that for the people living in Taiwan the governing power is the Republic of China. --Khajidha (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Khajidha Taiwan have 3 of element, whole country is in charge with the peoples living on it, is no reason to let another country which have same satue(1) land 2) people 3) administration) to decide it. which seem conflict. --Composcompos12 (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

make a example Pakistan and Israel is enemy ,and have a big conflict on the holy land, which seem really clear that Israel will claim the holy land is him, other way Pakistan did the same thing. so in this conflict we check the owner of holy land and saw the Israel hold it, so we just have a proof to say "Israel hold the holy land". clear and easy --Composcompos12 (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Chinese Wikipedia does not state whether Taiwan is or is not a sovereign state, as far as I can tell. If they can be neutral, why can't we?  WikiWinters ☯ 韦安智  23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

small temple for other article banner

Republic of China
中華民國
Zhōnghuá Mínguó[a]
A map depicting the territory under the control of the Republic of China in East Asia and in the World
Territory under the control of the Republic of China
ISO 3166 codeTW

made a small temple so we can put in other Taiwan article glory of Taiwan(天佑台灣) --Composcompos12 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't think that is needed. Country infoboxes only belong in articles about countries. Other articles can contain infoboxes but what type depends on the article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction in Taiwan

In the intro, a sentence reads, "After Japan's surrender in 1945, the ROC assumed its control of Taiwan." Is this factual or accurate? The following relevant facts ought to be stated:

The U.S. gave the Chinese KMT permission to occupy Taiwan. The Chinese KMT went to Taiwan and killed thousands and thousands of Taiwanese citizens in 228 Massacre, imposed martial law against the Taiwanese citizens, set up its government in Taiwan with the intention of recovering China. Three score and seven years later, the Taiwanese democracy evolved despite oppression from the Chinese KMT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.58.3 (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

China or mainland China

Why is China called mainland China when there's a discussion involving Taiwan? However, China is often not called mainland China, but just China, when there's a discussion involving the U.S. or Japan. This sounds like or implies an unfair, inaccurate statement insinuating Taiwan is or should be a part of China.

Taiwan's official name is called Republic of China. That's because the Chinese KMT lost the Chinese Civil War in China and went to Taiwan, took over it, killed thousands and thousands of Taiwanese citizens, and set up its government in Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.58.3 (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan is a part of China, just not the People's Republic of China, it is wholly administrated by the Republic of China and referring to the Chinese Mainland simply as "China" is a bias both pro-Communist and pro-Taiwanese exclusionist/-Taiwanese independence while being very anti-Democratic China, Wikipedia should remain neutral and should not act as if there already is an independent "Taiwanese state" there isn't, Taiwanese Mandarin is still Mandarin Chinese, and Taiwanese Hokkien is still Southern-Min Chinese regardless of their political status, in fact Cantonese which is more different from standard Mandarin (國語) than Southern-Min Chinese thus making the argument that Guangdongers aren't really Chinese people, also the Communist government killed way more people on the Chinese Mainland than the K.M.T. in fact more than any other government in the history of the world so using the argument that Kuomintang massacres of people on Taiwan somehow makes the Republic of China illegitimate doesn't translate into the reality of the situation, Wikipedia is about facts and neutrality, personally I would call the People's Republic of China The Soviet Zone (蘇區) and the Republic of China on Taiwan the only real China but this is my personal bias and I won't let that affect my editing, the reality is that regardless of public perception there are two China's and the Chinese Mainland = the Chinese Mainland, and Taiwan and surrounding islands = the Chinese Republic, don't try to argue facts with what you think is right.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Contains Chinese text

Add {{Contains Chinese text}}

The article already contains it, below the other infoboxes.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Removed Composcompos12's addition. The template belongs below the infobox per Template:Contains Chinese text. Phlar (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2015

I would like to edit this page.

Randomguy28293031 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2015

Please change “Taiwan (Listen/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/; Chinese: 臺灣 or 台灣; pinyin: Táiwān; see below), officially the Republic of China (ROC; Chinese: 中華民國; pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó), is a sovereign state in East Asia.” to "Taiwan (Listen/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/; Chinese: 臺灣 or 台灣; pinyin: Táiwān; see below), officially the Republic of China (ROC; Chinese: 中華民國; pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó), is a partially recognized state in East Asia." Source: in page of flags of unrecognized states in Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_unrecognized_states ,Republic of China (Taiwan) is listed. Zhangtianyi2001 (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: From a cursory look through the archives of this talk page, this would clearly be a very controversial edit to make. As this template is meant for uncontroversial edits, I am declining the request. However, I don't see a FAQ or any other reason to discourage you from discussing your proposed edit here further. Cannolis (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan/Archive_23&oldid=1137217298"