Jump to content

Talk:Taiwan/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Shortening lead section

The current lead section is way too long. I propose shortening it as so: User:Szqecs/sandbox Szqecs (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is currently too long.
For one thing, the recently-added second paragraph, about ancient and dynastic China, is point-making, and should be simply deleted, as suggested by User:TheBlueCanoe.
The other principal cause of bloat is the substantial overlap between the fourth paragraph (except its final sentence) and the sixth paragraph, and the over-emphasis on formal markers such as APEC membership and Vatican recognition. They should be combined into a single paragraph about Taiwan's status. I agree that it should get much less space than now, but it needs to be more specific than the last two sentences of your proposed revision. In particular, it should mention the PRC's claim and threat of force.
The last sentence of the fourth paragraph should be combined with the fifth paragraph in a single paragraph about the economic and political transformation of Taiwan in the late 20th century, and its current state.
So I would suggest the following paragraphs:
  1. introduction (as now)
  2. history to 1949 (current third paragraph)
  3. economic and political transformation
  4. international status
Kanguole 15:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The article is talking about polity Republic of China, and Republic of China regards itself as China. Therefore the second paragraph is simply fine. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
If the second paragraph is to be kept it should detail how and when the island first was part of the territory of a mainland dynasty. 174.22.3.31 (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The article is talking about polity Republic of China, not geographical entity island of Taiwan. For how and when the island of Taiwan first was part of the territory of a mainland dynasty, please detail it in article history of Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The second paragraph (the one that begins with the dangling modifier "being one of the cradles of civilization") doesn't belong in the lead because it covers information that doesn't fit anywhere else in the body of the article. The history section clearly states, "See the History of China article for historical information in the Chinese Mainland before 1949." Repeating information on the history of China in this Taiwan/ROC article only serves to make a political point. Phlar (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
"Taiwan" is not the formal abbreviation of Republic of China and is misleading. Since the article talks about Republic of China, repeating information on the history of China in this Republic of China article is fine. And the article says Republic of China represented China at the United Nations before 1971 and after that it still regards itself as China. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Reading this article, I found the topic is Republic of China (not Taiwan island), but I found the third paragraph and the "History" section are about Taiwan itself (geographical entity) rather than ROC (polity) or geographical China (not PRC). Republic of China (1912–49) is another article about ROC. However, readers can't find it directly. That's not good... So here is an important question: Which topic is this article, everything on Taiwan island, or the country named ROC (but it's commonly called Taiwan)? The talk page says "Taiwan is ...... in Geography." Confusing. --逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Judging from the template {{Infobox country}} used at the right side of the article, this is a political article talking about polity Republic of China. So the other contents talks about geographical entity island of Taiwan is indeed confusing.
If the article also wants to talk about island of Taiwan, it needs to also use template {{Infobox islands}} as used in article island of Taiwan. However, that is inappropriate because that changes the nature of this article. I suggest that contents which talks about island of Taiwan be removed from the article in order to avoid confusions. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. We're talking about a country (although it's with limited recognition some people from mainland China even consider it totally gone), not just the island where the state is now. Texts that say about Taiwan island but not related to ROC (events before 1945 - controlled by Japan or 1895 - no ROC here) should be moved to Taiwan island (and Geography of Taiwan should be renamed to Taiwan island), I think. The categories of this article should be changed, too.
I'm new in enwp. Let me tell what things are in zhwp: "China" refers to historical and cultural China, not PRC or ROC (of course not). "Taiwan" (en: Geography of Taiwan) is Taiwan island. And ROC is called its own name - "Republic of China" and "Republic of China (1912-1949)". Other words are the same.
In ROC article of zhwp, "History" section is saying about ROC not Taiwan island. Because there is another article introducing ROC before 1949, the rest sections focus on things after 1949.
--逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The arrangement on enwp was also the one you describe, until about 5 years ago – this was the article at "China" before it was moved to Chinese civilization and stripped down to a disambiguation page. The change was made to place the articles under their common names, where people would expect to find them. It also matches the arrangement in other encyclopedias, such as Britannica.[1][2] Kanguole 15:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Since there is so much to cover, I think the earlier history can be removed from lead and left only in the history section: User:Szqecs/sandbox. Szqecs (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I think all of these should depend on what this article is focusing on (as discussed above). In fact, there have been so many wiki pages on the Taiwan Area--both politically and geometrically, I was thinking to propose to call this article as "ROC in Taiwan" as it seems focus more on the Taiwan area as a part of ROC and not much related to PRC. However, if counting on the pre-Qing sections, it seems referring to the geological area as called Taiwan province. So, I would remove the seemingly biased polical statement on the first part and focus on the geological area and leave the history and other parts as they are. See also discussions on this talk page[3] for the usage of similar names in official places. I2000s (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Can we removed pre-Qing sentences from the lead as well? It's too distant and can be left for the History section. Szqecs (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article. If the aim is to make the lead shorter, I'd focus on combining and condensing the material on status in the third and fifth paragraphs. Kanguole 15:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

This article refers to Taiwan as a "state", which is defined by H.J. De Blij in Human Geography (An AP class taught to American high school students) as "A politically organized territory that is administered by sovereign government and is recognized by a significant portion of the international community. A state has a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and is recognized by other states."

Taiwan fits all parts of the definition of a state, however it is not recognized by a significant portion of the international community, as your own Wikipedia page on Taiwan's political status indicates. "On 25 October 1971, Resolution 2758 was passed by the UN General Assembly, which "decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it." It should be noted that the Resolution 2758 merely dealt with the issue of Chinese representative in UN without any reference to the legal status of Taiwan. Multiple attempts by the Republic of China to rejoin the UN, no longer to represent all of China but just the people of the territories it governs, have not made it past committee, largely due to diplomatic maneuvering by the PRC, which claims Resolution 2758 has settled the matter. (See China and the United Nations.)" - Wikipedia, "Political Status of Taiwan" page.

Thus it cannot be classified as "Taiwan (Listeni/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/), officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia.[12] Neighbors include the People's Republic of China (PRC, commonly known as "China") to the west, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south. Taiwan is the most populous non-UN state and the largest economy outside the UN."

I urge you to change this phrase, albeit small, to nation as quickly as possible, to spark less controversy in the on-going debates. Taiwan is it's own nation, however it doesn't fit the definition of a state because it has no international recognition.

Thanks Richardtigerlai (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Have you used the search box at the top of this page to view the previous "sovereign state" and "state" discussions on archived talk pages? There are many many hits over the past eight years +. It's been argued from many angles. Lot's of definitions of "state" exist. Changing it to "state" from "sovereign state" was as far as we could go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The reference provided for the first sentence does not support the characterization of Taiwan/ROC as a "state." Chondrite (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Prehistory section

Regarding this revert,

  1. The present-day speakers of Austronesian languages have a complex and diverse genetic history. To label these settlers from six millennia ago as Austronesians is anachronistic. Moreover, although the idea that Austronesian originated on Taiwan is the majority view, it is not universal. What is universally accepted is that they were agriculturalists, i.e. farmers.
  2. Some qualification like "probably" or "most likely" is necessary to accurately convey the views in the field – again, most scholars consider southeast China the most likely source of the migration, but not all.
  3. I don't believe I removed sourced information. I changed "More than 8,000 years ago" to "Around 6,000 years ago", because that is what the sources say. I replaced a phrase directly quoted from a source with a paraphrase. I did remove two citations of papers on genetics, because they provide only passing mentions of this archaeological topic, and replaced with them with a reference to Jiao (2007), an archaeologist surveying the current state of work in this field.

Kanguole 00:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The two genetics papers (Hill et al and Bird et al) focus on the dispersal across island southeast Asia and Oceania – their discussion of Taiwan is peripheral, so a source that adresses the subject directly (like Jiao) is to be preferred. Still, both of them contradict "More than 8,000 years ago". Kanguole 18:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Making important changes without discussion

I noticed in the last two days editor ILVTW has made many changes to the article with no discussion. I reverted to longstanding prose but was reverted again which is not wiki protocol. Per the changes, Taiwan no longer uses Taiwanese Mandarin as it's language, and it is no longer fully self-governing. Editors may want to check out these non-discussed edits. I'll leave it to others from here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@ILVTW: There is a source pointing out that the territory of the ROC is disputed and therefore it is controversial to assert that the ROC meets the requirements of statehood.[1] My suggestion is that we keep the lead as what it was and add the statehood dispute in a section below in the article. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stephen D. Krasner (2001). Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities. New York City: Columbia University Press. p. 46. ISBN 0231121792. Many have argued that Taiwan qualifies for statehood, since Taiwan has its own government that controls a population on the territory of the island of Taiwan and conducts its own foreign affairs, and since Taiwan has already been recognized in the past as an independent state. But to make such an argument, one has to reject China's claim of sovereignty over the territory of the Taiwan island, a claim that has been recognized by most states in the world.
Indeed we should try to avoid overloading the lead.
On a technical point, Yami is a Malayo-Polynesian language, and therefore does not belong to the Formosan languages, which consist of all the other branches of Austronesian. Kanguole 01:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The current use of "self-governing" hardly describes the status quo of Taiwan politics, as you can also use the phrase to refer to regions/states with great autonomous power with no political dispute, e.g. Greenland & Faroe to Denmark, Puerto Rico to the US. It is ambiguous to use it which could have given a more appropriate term instead of using "self-governing"". I was unhappy that you have ignored the various reliable sources I have attached with the added information. If the statehood issue has to be avoided in many ways then the article should not regard Taiwan as "state""country" on the heading as you mentioned it has been plainly controversial.ILVTW (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand your concern about the use of "self-governing", but asserting that the ROC has most of the characteristics of an independent state is also controversial according to the source I cited above. And it's not that I ignored the two sources you cited that said the ROC meets the requirements of statehood; there is now a source (the one above) with the opposite viewpoint so we have to come up with a neutral phrasing instead. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
If you have read the attached references in more detail then you would realise that I did not state Taiwan is essentially satisfied with every conditions of elements of statehood, my description was "Taiwan has *most of* the characteristics of an independent state". Similar description could be seen in many sources such as BBC profile. Despite using ambiguous word, I would expect you giving more space to other editors that someone should correct the term in more appropriate definition.ILVTW (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
But meeting only two out of the four requirements should not be described as "most of", should it? --Matt Smith (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Please read the reference that I have provided before arguing, my choice of words is correspondingly evidence-based.[1][2]ILVTW (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Taiwan's Quest for Greater Participation in the International Community. November 2013. Retrieved 17 February 2017. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)"Taiwan remains in limbo with regard to its sovereignty, as it meets only three of the four criteria of statehood under the 1933 Montevideo Convention. The island has a distinct territory,a distinct population, and a government that administers locally and does not answer to any other countries. However, it faces great difficulty meeting the fourth condition: the ability to engage in formal relations with other states."
  2. ^ "TAIWAN: SOVEREIGNTY AND PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS" (PDF). Jacques de Lisle. July 2011. Retrieved 17 February 2017.
I had read them. The point is that the source I cited says that the "territory" factor is controversial. Therefore according to sources we currently have, the ROC only meets two requirements: "population" and "government". --Matt Smith (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not going to argue how you personally identify the criteria, I have given my words and edited it accordingly. It is mistaken by choosing the phrase of "self-governing" as the reason I told you before and which is never appropriate with the current case of Taiwan. If you insisted to use a wrong concept to describe and considered it as so-called "neutral phrasing". Then so be it... Wikipedia is not a reliable data source anyway.ILVTW (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I can totally understand you. I myself also regard many phrasings in the article as misleading, but the article can only be edited according to all available sources, not just some of those sources. "Self-governing" is an undisputable word for describing the current status of the ROC so it is more appropriate than "has most of the characteristics of an independent state". --Matt Smith (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Demonym

Because the infobox says Taiwanese, could the demonym also include Chinese as well? The reason why it should be added because under the One China principle, both the Mainland/PRC and Taiwan/ROC are "one united China". 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:C158:98C2:1732:48EE (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Even from the point of view that Taiwan is a part of one united China, Chinese still isn't an appropriate demonym for Taiwan, as it's far too broad. They'd be Taiwanese like Hong Kong people are Hong Kongers and those from Shanghai are Shanghainese. CMD (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
See also the discussion at Archive 23 from May 2015. 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) 12:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
People from mainland China also call people from Taiwan "Taiwan people". Does that mean they have recognized Taiwan as a country? No, they call people from everywhere by their regions of origin. This has nothing to do with political views. Of course, people from the island of Taiwan are called Taiwanese, but are people from Mazu Taiwanese, just because you named the article "Taiwan", preferring common usage and ignoring the constitution? --178.10.55.209 (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2017

The following is a closed 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 per WP:SNOW. Come on people, stop wasting everyone's time. В²C ☎ 23:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


– Because the Chinese Wikipedia corresponds those, I also noticed from the Russian Wikipedia that it also has this and this as well as the Greek Wikipedia. I do not condone the WP:COMMONNAME but its better to change those articles to correspond with the other languages in the Wikipedia. Taiwan is just an island not an independent sovereign nation, but the Republic of China has been in existence since 1912 but the mainland is usurped by the PRC in 1949. 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:5C89:BBA5:CFF6:4F03 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. All the names involved have some political baggage but this is the most WP:NPOV we can get. With regards the Chinese Wikipedia, this is blocked in mainland China and so is dominated by users from Taiwan and the diaspora, making it an unconvincing precedent. Timrollpickering 23:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Although I don't expect the change, I would still like to express my opinion. It should be pointed out that countries around the world do not use the official name of the ROC and instead use "Taiwan" to refer to it because they dare not to miff the PRC. Also, using "Taiwan" to refer to the ROC has been creating confusing and misleading consequences in this article. As you can see in this article, its purpose is to introduce the ROC, which founded in 1912, but many contents are introducing histories of Taiwan (island) that have nothing to do with the ROC. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • No, it’s not out of deference to the PRC. For that they use Chinese Taipei. “Taiwan” is just the common name, which people have settled on as “Republic of China” is a bit of a mouthful and easily confused with “People’s Republic of China”. It’s no accident that the two countries chose very similar formal names when they split – each was trying to make a claim to be the rightful government and authority of the whole of the former territory of China. But the rest of the world mostly doesn’t know or care about this history, and much prefers the two easily recognised and distinguished names, "Taiwan” and “China”.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen any country saying that it uses "Taiwan" simply because "Republic of China" is mouthful and confusing. What I have seen is that countries around the world were asked by the PRC to obey its One-China policy so that they cannot name another China (ROC). As far as I know, countries around the world use terms like "Taiwan", "Chines Taipei", "Taiwan, China", etc, out of deference to the PRC, and "Taiwan" is an ambiguous, short form of the other terms. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I have never seen evidence governments or international bodies use "Taiwan" out of deference to the PRC. It's "Chinese Taipei" or "Taipei,China" (with the lack of space a deliberate choice) when China's approval is required. As for the general English-speaking populace, they certainly don't use Taiwan out of any sort of deference. They use it because that's the name they know. CMD (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
An obvious example would be Taiwan Relations Act, in which the United States says that it uses "Taiwan" to refer to the ROC in some contexts because it had turned its Chinese recognition to the PRC. (sec. 15) --Matt Smith (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The Taiwan Relations Act was put in place to put a check against the PRC, not due to deference to it. Further, it is a very old text. Compare if you want all the recent American coverage on Trump's call with Tsai. CMD (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Saying "deference" in that case might be inaccurate, but the United States does state in the Act that it uses the term "Taiwan" to refer to the ROC in a certain contexts because of the change of its position on the Chinese recognition. The Act has been a policy which the United States uses to handle its various relations with Taiwan since 1979, and that hasn't changed. As far as I know, Trump–Tsai call mentioned nothing about "Republic of China" being mouthful or confusing, and at that time Trump was not the President of the United States so he could not represent the United States. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No one solution or theory will be found to be the "perfect solution". None will be a 'natural' naming for everybody. None will answer everyone's demand for 'respect'. The current situation has been arrived at as the least bad solution, reflecting the common usage of these names. (And can we please have some kind of policy that says usage changes over years and decades, not months or weeks? It would take me more than a few weeks to popularize "George's maypole", but after a couple more administrations, sure!) Shenme (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Taiwan is the common name. Most people who don't speak Chinese are unfamiliar with the names "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China." Chinese wikipedia, by contrast, uses the official names because most Chinese readers are quite familiar with the two separate concepts. But English wikipedia needs to use the common English names, which are Taiwan and China. Phlar (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No new arguments have been brought up here. The original move request had a comprehensive list of usage from around the world. If there have been any shifts in the common names used since the last discussion, I suspect they are further in the direction of the current arrangement. CMD (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Please note that it is not WP:NPOV-conforming to assert that Taiwan belongs to the ROC because there are different opinions on that topic. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The whole reality is a big POV. What are the different opinions on that topic if I may ask? Is Taiwan Dutch or Spanish? Is the Qing dynasty even China? How was China a country prior to the Western concept of "country"? Should 98% of the population (Han Chinese) leave the island and give it back to the natives? Hell, is the colonization of what we call the almighty 'Murica today legitimate? When did humans invent the concept of "possession"? Isn't everything null and void compared to the giant universe? --178.10.55.209 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2017 (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.

Multiple IP addresses

Okay we generally ask IPs which take part in such discussions to stick to one stable IP to put the edits on the same level as other users who create accounts. In this case looks like the IP has canvassed legitimately participating editor Matt Smith twice from two different addresses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:C158:98C2:1732:48EE . Could the IP please declare what other addresses he/she has used? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the Republic of China (1949-71) period

Near-unanimous consensus to oppose the restoration of the article, largely per the AfD discussionWinged Blades Godric 11:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

Because the article Republic of China (1949-71) redirects to Taiwan after World War II, I am proposing this article needs to be restored since it held the UN seat after it lost the mainland to the CCP until the PRC replaced the ROC. However, the Category:Treaties of the Republic of China (1949–71) article matches it all. Any suggestions or comments.2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:4EF:D86A:11F0:ECD1 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • oppose per the AfD discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose for all the reasons listed in the AfD discussion. Phlar (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The page in question was made of direct copy-pastes from other articles. It can't be restored for that reason. Regarding the topic as a whole, the AfD discussion had good points which have not been addressed here. CMD (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - There are three major periods of ROC history: 1912-1949: ROC is the de jure and de facto "China", 1949-1971: ROC is still considered "China" by many outsiders but is de facto limited to Taiwan and surrounding islands, 1971-now: few outsiders consider the ROC as "China" despite its legal claims it is treated as a defacto independent state of "Taiwan". The first period is logically part of the China article, the current one is the Taiwan article, the middle period does not fit comfortably in either article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Whatever your views on the validity of the period, the IPs proposal to restore the deleted page cannot be done due to it being unattributed cut-and-pastes. CMD (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It still needs to be re-written and re-formatted if that's the case. 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:4EF:D86A:11F0:ECD1 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – largely per the AfD. This is not a coherent proposal for a restructuring of the ROC/Taiwan articles, just a proposal for an additional article, a fork of part of Taiwan after World War II. As for that structure, the principal watershed in the history of the country is the loss of the mainland in 1949, which changed its nature radically. No other milestone compares with that. The loss of recognition in the 70s is crucial in foreign relations, but not for other aspects of the country. The key watershed for domestic politics is the end of martial law and the introduction of democratic elections, for the economy it's the start of the "miracle", etc. Kanguole 16:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the AfD. Nothing has changed since October, when this was discussed thoroughly. --T*U (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional Comments

This was discussed at length in the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of China (1949–71). As can be seen from Taiwan after World War II the date 1971 is not an important landmark in Taiwan’s history. It’s just a footnote, one of many events in the transition from recognising Taiwan to recognising China, as the rightful representative of the China that existed before 1949.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Could this Taiwan issue be discussed in WP:ARBCOM? 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:4EF:D86A:11F0:ECD1 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.144.238 (talk)

Guys, this will be your answer if you read this per User:Khajidha's comment: "As the Communist forces headed for victory, Chiang began to shift troops and gold reserves to the island of Taiwan, 100 miles off the Chinese mainland. Two months after the inauguration of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in Beijing on October 1, 1949, Chiang and the Nationalists installed the rival Republic of China (ROC) as a government in exile on Taiwan." They would hold on to the UN seat until 1971. [4] 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:19CC:10C8:E1F7:57E8 (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Multiple IP addresses – again

Just above this RfC there is a section called "Multiple IP addresses" where a user is asked to declare other IP adresses they are using. That request concerns IP_2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:C158:98C2:1732:48EE and IP_2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:5C89:BBA5:CFF6:4F03. The proposer of the current RfC is IP_2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:4EF:D86A:11F0:ECD1, which looks very much the same. In the entry just above here, that same IP address is given as a "signature" in an unsigned(!) comment by IP_135.23.144.238, which again is very similar to the users IP_135.23.144.12 and IP_135.23.144.153 that have tried to recreate this article after the AfD as seen here. I will repeat the request: Could the IP please declare what other addresses he/she has used? --T*U (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The IP may not know what addresses they've used. Better to ask them to put an identifier after their comments if you feel something untoward is going on. CMD (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand. Untoward or not, I do not know, but at least confusing. Would it be appropriate to ask the proposer in this RfC to confirm or denounce that a list of specific edits to this and related articles and talk pages are theirs? --T*U (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You could ask them on their talkpage about specific comments yes, but i reckon there's a good chance that given how similar the IP addresses are that we can simply assume it's the same person. CMD (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2017 (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.

Infobox change

WP:SNOW consensus against the proposal.Winged Blades Godric 14:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

On the Abkhazia infobox replacement, its time for the new infobox that I created based on the one User:Seryo93 made on the Abkhazia article. So the new infobox would be used for disputed territories in the future. Should the current infobox be replaced with a new one? Vote now. Supreme Dragon (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose gives prominence to claimants when so far this article doesnt have an issue with the de facto standard country infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The new infobox is technically NPOV and I like the way it is done. Whether it is applicable in this article needs to be assessed. The problem here is the difference between ROC and Taiwan. What is this article about? Is this about the Taiwan island? Or is this about the ROC on Taiwan? The new infobox given would suit an article about "Taiwan island" as compared to an article about the "ROC on Taiwan" state. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The article is about the ROC. There were once three separate article on the ROC, the PRC and the island of Taiwan. That was changed during a big RFC to the current situation several years ago. The ROC article got changed into "Taiwan" (this article), the PRC article moved to "China" and the Taiwan-Island article was moved to Geography of Taiwan. Dead Mary (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Taiwan's status is important, but in this presentation it overshadows all the other important aspects. Also, the issue is too complex to be accurately conveyed in infobox form. Kanguole 17:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current infobox is appropriate. All other partially recognised countries use this form of infobox with the exception of Abkhazia, which suggests this was a one-off error of implementation (having read the discussion that resulted in the infobox being changed on that article, I'm amazed the debate was closed in favour of the proposal). Number 57 23:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Taiwans (or to be precise, the ROC, since this is what the article is about) status may be complicated, but it is still on a completely different level than Abkhazia. Downgrading Taiwan/ROC into a "contested territory" by removing the country infobox and adding this new one would mean giving in to certain POV. We should not play such politics here. The country infobox is appropriate here and it is also used in every other state who has contested territory or limited recognition, such as Palestine, Israel, Northern Cyprus or the SADR. Dead Mary (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, are we sure there's consensus for this infobox on Abkhazia?  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Actually, I see no consensus at the Abkhazia article. I would have closed it as no consensus to change as the arguments on both sides were pretty down the middle. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose And how do you define a disputed territory? Should we do the same for China? Szqecs (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reason as Szqecs. There's 6 UN members that do not have recognition from all other UN members, would we put this template on them as well? I would also add my voice to those saying that it should not be used at Abkazia either.--Khajidha (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is really a meaningless design of infobox I have ever seen... how would you classified whose sovereignty is "de jure" or "de fact"? Two Korea both claim each other as one integrated Korean territory, Israel-occupied Jerusalem and Golan Height were accepted by many UN states as "de jure" territories of Palestine and Syria. Would you reflect these viewpoints for those countries as well? Not mention that the ROC was once a global-wide recognized state which should be treated equally to the PRC! 101.165.6.156 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Taiwan is an legitimate state with its own government and military, not a puppet state of some external powers. C-GAUN (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2017 (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.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)

The proposal to update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) to handle the China/Taiwan matter is under discussion. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Fengshan District#Requested move 4 April 2017

Dear all. I invite you to join the discussion on renaming districts of Kaohsiung. @George Ho:. Szqecs (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Dear all. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Again??? Didn't we just do this? China and Taiwan are what we use by consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): This discussion is not just about this article but also other related ones such as Flag of the Republic of China.
As for this one, as you know, there are move proposals all the time, therefore it isn't universal consensus. Users are always allowed to propose moves, sure, but the discussion need not go too far every time. Having a special Naming Conventions is better than using the commonly used, more general WP:COMMONNAME. A new discussion from scratch may not be needed, but the rationale for and against need to be compiled for fast reference. Also, some people believe that the general WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to this special case. There could be an exception if it is agreed upon, but with the current mode of the discussions, it doesn't seem possible. Szqecs (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's needed to change "Flag of the Republic of China" to "Flag of Taiwan" but it does make some sense. But that's pretty much all the sort of thing this should entail since there is no chance of a snowball in Hades that the article names are going to change from Taiwan or from China. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
You are not sure because it hasn't been discussed thoroughly. Even if the current articles never change, there could always be new articles like new government agencies, whose article name would need to be decided. There doesn't need to be a lengthy discussion every time. Szqecs (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The names of the two articles have been discussed a lot... so I'm sure about that aspect. New articles and their titles I'm not sure of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Map changes

In this picture above, this map should be re-added since the green represents the Free area of the Republic of China and light green as historical or current claims. To User:Matt Smith will this more be appropriate since the ROC still claims the mainland but no actual control? 24.212.149.50 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Since File:People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg also shows the portions which the PRC claims but isn't controlling, I think it is okay to use the image you are referring to for the ROC. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Where in the article do you propose to add this map? I think it would only be appropriate in a section describing the territory claimed by, but not under the control of, the ROC. Without detailed explanation, it would confuse or mislead many readers. Phlar (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not opposed to adding the map, but it should be clearly mentioned that these are historical claims. Can someone find a citation though? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems that the ROC govt has never officially made or published any territorial claims for the mainland since 2005. In the 2005 ROC Yearbook (in Chinese) they described the mainland as part of its territory for the last time. Guess it’s almost impossible to find any recent source to support any active territorial claims. And in 2012, they explicitly dropped the claim for Mongolia and recognized its independence (in Chinese). The matter is roughly described in the article History of the administrative divisions of China (1912–49).--Tomchen1989 (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Not correct. Art. 1 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China ([5]) states that “The electors of the free area of the Republic of China shall cast ballots at a referendum within three months of the expiration of a six-month period following the public announcement of a proposal passed by the Legislative Yuan on the amendment of the Constitution or alteration of the national territory. The provisions of Article 4 and Article 174 of the Constitution shall not apply.” As such a referendum has never taken place, it is clear that the Republic of China claims the entire territory of China. This is also evident out of the fact that the ROC does not recognize the PRC as a state. Obviously, given the current circumstances, the ROC is not in the position to enforce its claims. But I think a map showing Mainland China as claimed territory would make the situation much clearer. After all, this article, though it is called "Taiwan", is in fact about the (post-1949) Republic of China and not about Taiwan Province or about the Free area of the Republic of China. De wafelenbak (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not clearer. In that map, the territorial claim (which is now completely theoretical) overshadows and obscures the actual territory controlled by the state. It is sufficient to discuss the territorial claim in the body of the article. Kanguole 13:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent status across Wikipedia: Article=state+country, but portal=region, further (only some) categories subordinate to China

This talk page seems to have Wikipedia's focus for how we represent the (non-trivial) status of Taiwan, so I am posting here.

On one hand, the opening statement of this article describes Taiwan as a state and uses consistent with that the {{infobox country}}.

However, Portal:Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and its redirect Portal:Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) calls it a region.

Further, some Taiwan categories are subordinate to China, e.g. Category:Nuclear power stations in Taiwan and Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Taiwan, but others such as Category:Republic of China Army are not. One month ago Beagel asked for guidance with respect to the categories [here], but no one has commented.

As such I find Wikipedia's description of the status of Taiwan to be inconsistent, and I think

1) the article and the portal on Taiwan should afford it the same status,

2) if that status is a state then its categories should not be subordinate to China, otherwise they should.

I would appreciate if anyone here can contribute to clearing up how these two points can be implemented (or else argue against them). Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RE your two points:
1) Agree. And implementation should be easy enough after consensus has been achieved.
2) Disagree. The purpose of categorization is to enable users to "browse and quickly find sets of pages on [defined] topics." Ease-of-use and NPOV should trump ideology. Categories are different than articles in that they cannot accommodate explanatory notes, sources, etc. so they are generally meant to be uncontroversial (see Categorization#Articles). Non-controversial parent categories should be chosen on a case-by-case basis. For example, making Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Taiwan subordinate to China is controversial because some feel that Taiwan is not part of China, but making it subordinate to Asia, for example, should be OK because Taiwan is unquestionably part of Asia.
Phlar (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I have restored 'country' to the Portal introduction. It was changed without explanation ten months ago, and while there are often disputes over how to classify Taiwan, by no stretch of the imagination is it a region. The other point about its relationship to China is a far more complex and contentious issue, not something that can really be resolved here as it affects far too many other articles.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Taiwan is technically an island (self governing), though the term Taiwan is also used for the Free area of the Republic of China (or the Taiwan area).From this, Strictly speaking, the terms “Formosa”, “Taiwan”, and “Republic of China” are not synonymous. “The Republic of China” is the English name of a sovereign state, which is recognized by more than twenty members of the United Nations, though not by Japan. Taiwan is a province of China, which is recognized as such by both of the governments which lay claim to it, namely, the ROC and the PRC (People's Republic of China). The territory of Taiwan consists entirely of islands, of which the largest is Formosa, which name was given it by sixteenth century Portuguese explorers, and which has been used in English-language writing thereafter. In addition to Formosa, the province comprises the Pescadores or Penghu Islands 澎湖群島 to the west of Formosa, Orchid Island 蘭嶼 and Green Island 緑島 to the east of Formosa, and a number of smaller islands. In English-language writing and speech, both Chinese governments use the name "Taiwan" ambiguously, referring either to the province 台湾省 or to its primary island, Formosa 美麗島. Another difficulty is that "China" and "Taiwan" are often used to distinguish, respectively, PRC-controlled territory from ROC-controlled territory; however, this too is misleading usage, for the territory controlled by the ROC is actually greater than the extent of the province of Taiwan. In addition to Taiwan, the ROC controls island groups near the Chinese mainland which are traditionally part of mainland provinces. The use of “Taiwan” to mean Formosa, as well as the de facto ROC control of areas beyond Formosa and the Pescadores, is reflected in the ROC’s official name as a member of the APEC, which is “the Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu”. This is no clear cut description of what Taiwan is. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Phlar: Thanks for your comments. I agree with your statement that 'Non-controversial parent categories should be chosen on a case-by-case basis'. I am a bit unsure to what extent you actually disagree with my point 2). The two category examples I gave, Category:Nuclear power stations in Taiwan and Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Taiwan, are currently subordinate to China, and I agree with you that this cannot be called non-controversial. For guidance, I would appreciate an example of a Taiwanese category that could non-controversially be subordinate to China. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lklundin: Sorry, I could've explained my "disagreement" more clearly. I took your point #2 literally, i.e. that the subordination or non-subordination of "Taiwan" categories to "China" categories should depend on the status afforded to Taiwan in the Taiwan article and portal. I disagree with this principle, because the status will continue to be controversial for the foreseeable future, but categories should not be controversial for the reasons I cited above. Therefore, I feel that the decision about whether or not to subordinate a "Taiwan" category to a "China" category should be made independently of the "status of Taiwan" question. For example, I think that making Cat:Taiwanese politicians subordinate to Cat:Chinese politicians would be controversial, but subordinating Cat:Taiwanese opera to Cat:Chinese opera is not controversial. Phlar (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Phlar: OK, many thanks for the clarification. Per this principle, I would say that Category:Nuclear power stations in Taiwan and Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Taiwan (especially the nuclear one), should not be subordinate to their Chinese equivalents. Unless someone within some days makes a convincing counterargument, I will then fix that. If someone feels convinced it should be fixed sooner, then just WP:Be bold. Lklundin (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
China = PRC, Taiwan = ROC (not geographically but per political entities when used colloquially in speech, inference is unequivocally understood by all). Easy to conclude on suitability for categorization. Nuclear power station clearly should not be under China. The ONLY time it would be suitable is when Taiwan comes under effective rule of PRC (like Hong Kong and Macau). Until then, any opposition is politically motivated trolling. Wikipedia should reflect fact and reality not pander to sensitivities. Czgsq (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is constructive to be so entirely dismissive of any yet to be made arguments. We can certainly not rule out that the two China's can have some areas of overlap (maybe linguistic, cultural, genetic), and since Taiwan is the younger of the two countries, it is conceivable that some Taiwan-categories can be non-controversially subordinate to those of China. I think Phlar has provided a good example in support of that. Lklundin (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better for government pages to be People's Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan) as per each governments own wording but references to each entity will be China and Taiwan respectively. I think this would be the least controversial. Czgsq (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC) I take that back, I had a look at North Korea and South Korea, so it should be fine to use China and Taiwan. PRC and ROC does confuse people, yet Taiwan raises problem over its legal status and constitution. ROC government is stuck in the year 1912 and continues to claim territory lost 68-106 years ago (ROC map). Yet they can't update their constitution to reflect reality as it would trigger an invasion from the PRC. There are articles that sufficiently cover the ROC government's history 1911-1949 and post-1949. English Wikipedia should reflect the usage in the Anglosphere. Does anyone still hear PRC and ROC being used as of 2017? Mostly just China and Taiwan when referring to the two entities/countries. Czgsq (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note needed. =)

@Kanguole:I perceive that note is important enough to be put on the first paragraph. Hope you could understand. Thank you! =) --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 10:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The note in question was:
Taiwan, a commonly-known name for the ROC, is gaining popularity to be formally used to stand for Republic of China as it's short and clear and Chinese Communist Party hasn't recognized the presence of ROC, saying word "China" refers to People's Republic of China, aka PRC
This is both unnecessary clutter, as the issue is discussed in a more encyclopedic style lower down, and advances a contentious claim, which should not be done in the opening paragraph. It is far better to discuss the issue properly in article text. Kanguole 10:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention that it uses very poor grammar. --Khajidha (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2017

Change GDP total from "$1.147 trillion" to "$1,147 trillion" Bosung90 (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Again, not done: as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Decimals — IVORK Discuss 09:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

GDP data should update

GDP data are made in 2014,Why not use World Economic Outlook Database, April 2017,IMF?? These data are old and should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.142.115.27 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done: it's a bit tricky, since they don't include Taiwan in their countries list. Kanguole 11:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Split proposal at Talk:Politics of the Republic of China

Splitting the article Politics of the Republic of China is proposed at Talk:Politics of the Republic of China#RfC, where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Threat of invasion

The major threat to the ROC is of course invasion from the Communist-controlled mainland. That could be simply stated. It is not the same as "constant threat of invasion by the PRC under the Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China". It is not a threat of invasion by or under legislation, but military force.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is that that military force would be acting under the guidelines of that legislation. China has enacted this law as a standing notice that they will invade if they feel it necessary. This is an important point. This isn't some vague idea that Taiwan could be invaded at any time, this is like following someone around while constantly pointing a gun at their head. --Khajidha (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Another RM at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China

The move request is made at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China#Requested move 24 May 2017, which is ongoing. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with nomenclature

Hi there. Over at Same-sex marriage in Taiwan, an anon user has gone through the article replacing references to Taiwan as a "country" with the word "province". As I'm sure you guys have debated this one to death, could someone clarify what the most accurate/consensus terminology would be in this case? I considered "island" as more neutral, but it doesn't work in the sentence "would become the first island in Asia to legalise...", among others. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Just restore the previous wording (I've done that), warn the user, and block them if they persist. --Khajidha (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok thanks! Jdcooper (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether we should call the PRC "Mainland China", or simply "China" When compared to the ROC in geography ? And should we take Taiping Islands and Diaoyutai Islands into consideration when we talk about the ROC?

I noticed that ROC may not be confined to Taiwan island when we talk about neighbors of ROC, islands like the Taiping Islands may be considerate so that the S.R.Vietnam and the R.O.Korea should also be regard as neighed states. Please check out the Wikipedia item of the Chinese version. When we talk about ROC and　PRC, Mainland China　may not be less offensive, since considerable Taiwanese regard themselves as Chinese at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkbreaker (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That would not be reasonable enough if you take Diaoyutai islands for example, anyway I agree that it is more suitable to express it this way. -Proletdictus 17:13, 10 June 2017(UTC) Proletdictus (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The country has sea borders with Japan to the northeast and the Philippines to the south, so they are neighbours. Vietnam and South Korea aren't, whether you include the disputed islands or not. The English Wikipedia is not bound by the Chinese one (or vice versa).
We've had many discussions on what to call the PRC, and there is general agreement to use the common name (China) unless special circumstances apply. Kanguole 17:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
But the sea borders given by the website of the Presidency of the ROC are confined to the border of Taiwan island, and if we refer to the eleven-dotted line that the ROC government formerly claims, the ROC should have common border with the R.O.Vietnam and then the S.R.Vietnam. Wkbreaker 18:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
That claim is not recognised by anyone else, not even taken seriously by the Taiwanese govt., otherwise they would be enforcing it. More generally many countries have overseas territories and outposts, like Taiping, which are not geographically within that country. E.g. the UK has the Falkland Islands. But you would not say the UK is neighbours with Argentina because of this.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually Former President Ma had restated the claim of the 11-dotted line everytime other states try to change the status quo. Though this border may by Only admitted by PRC or ROC. And it is under Gaoxiong City,like the Okinawa of Japan, rather than regard as a overseas island.So if you say Vietnam was not a neighbor,Japan neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proletdictus (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"Taiwan" is not a sovereign political entity, the "Republic of China" is.

Compare "Ireland" Vs. the "Republic of Ireland", the Republic of Ireland article exist separately from the Ireland article despite "Ireland" being the WP:COMMONNAME for the country, I'm not suggesting changing other articles with "Taiwan" or "Taiwanese" in the name to "Republic of China", but this article clearly denotes a political state and the Republic of China is a sovereign state, before there used to be a "China" article explaining the situation, and for the same reason that "Korea" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the Republic of Korea doesn't mean that we would have to change it. In fact the current title gives WP:UNDUE weight to both Taiwanese independence, and the One-China policy and for this same reason we refrain from calling the Republic of Ireland simply "Ireland", or the Republic of Korea simply as "Korea" both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China are sovereign states called "China" no matter how often the media repeats that the ROC is called "Taiwan" doesn't make it true. The Tylenol page also directs users to the uncommonly used name (in the English-speaking world) "paracetamol" or qn obscure band, for some reason WP:COMMONNAME is never applied to any other political entity other than here. --42.112.158.223 (talk)

And yes, I'm quoting the Republic of Ireland article because it would be "controversial" to simply move it to "Ireland", and Taiwan has had a separate history from the Republic of China government that the article Geography of Taiwan could better cover as it too would be moved, but simply to Taiwan.
--42.112.158.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Taiwan is not a de jure state. It's an island, and a province. The ROC is a state, founded in 1912, and an article about that state belongs under Republic of China. As is, there's the unnatural Republic_of_China_(1912–49) article that, bizarrely, implies the ROC is defunct... and then this one, which implies ROC is the same thing as Taiwan. This is pretty nonsensical. Kiralexis (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"Ireland" and "Korea" are ambiguous terms, "Taiwan" is not. Szqecs (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Dont think the title of articles should be based on the opinions of amateurs. Clarification in the article, certainly. Whats more, Taiwan is at least as ambiguous as Ireland and Korea combined. 114.248.199.120 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Taiwan is nowhere near as ambiguous. LordAtlas (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The "Taiwan" page makes very little sense and only serve to confuse

Fact 1: RoC (Republic of China) rules parts of Fujian Province as well (and of course entirety of Taiwan province), so this current article equating Taiwan province to RoC is pretty ridiculous. What about Penghu and Jinmen? these counties are also ruled by RoC and they are part of Fujian province.

Fact 2: Taiwan province actually has a provincial governor, which is a different and separate political position vs President of RoC. President of RoC has much more power than the Taiwan governor. If Taiwan = RoC, how would this work? - Ranmin (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Perhaps you are looking for this article: Taiwan Province? --Khajidha (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
That's my point, there's no sovereign state known as Taiwan now or historically, exactly zero country has ever recognized a country known as Taiwan. There's only Taiwan the province, and China the country. There's two legitimate governments ruling different parts of China. RoC rules Taiwan province and parts of Fujian province, PRoC rules the rest of Chinese territory. So whenever you refer to "Taiwan", you would be referring to a Chinese province known as Taiwan. So this "Taiwan" article is confusing, since there's no country known as Taiwan. - Ranmin (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be confused. When English-speakers talk about Taiwan, they almost only mean RoC and NOT the island. That's how it is. You are confused because you don't believe this country exists. That's your problem. LordAtlas (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I think any language speaker can understand Taiwan refers to RoC, but the name of the article should be RoC, since there's no country known officially as Taiwan. It's the English wikipedia that is confused. The Chinese Wikipedia correctly uses RoC as the name of the article, you can click on the "中文" link to the left and see for yourself. - Ranmin (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, most of us view Taiwan as separate from China and not a province of it. LordAtlas (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you in denial? Taiwan is ruled by a government called Republic of China, it's in the god damn official name - Ranmin (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
English-speakers say "Taiwan" to refer to this country. Take your nationalism elsewhere. Notice how RoC and PRC are not the same? LordAtlas (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Which is evidence that the Taiwan government is in denial, not English speakers. --Khajidha (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There's no rule that we should use official names. Szqecs (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
It's highly controversial to assert that Taiwan (island) is part of China. So please avoid making the said assertion. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2017

At "Political and legal status" there's a timeline of history, change "China" to "Mainland China" as it implies that the Republic of China isn't "China". Further "Mainland China" would be less ambiguous. 1.55.183.244 (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Republic of China ISN'T China anymore. --Khajidha (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Mainland China is a term little used or recognised outside of the China/Greater China reason. "China" is the common name, constrasts well with "Taiwan", and is perfectly clear and unambiguous.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming of the article

For majority of other island countries, the official names are also different from the geographical name. This is standard naming convention on English Wikipedia and the consensus established in previous discussions. Any further edits should refer to this guideline. Alex ShihTalk 11:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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.

To remove confusion stated by other editors above, I propose to rename this page to Republic of China (Taiwan). Please express your views below ELHK | 〒 13:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

As noted on the top of this talk page, please read the archives before commenting so the same discussion can be avoided. Alex ShihTalk 13:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Although I do acknowledge that the page is currently named as Taiwan due to WP:COMMON NAME, but my proposal of changing the naming of this article will remove the confusion between Taiwan the island, and Taiwan the political entity, which is officially Republic of China, as stated by other editors above. This proposed name will satisfy both WP: COMMON NAME and editors who are highlighting the confusion created due to the naming of the article. ELHK | 〒 16:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
"Although I do acknowledge that the page is currently named as Taiwan due to WP:COMMON NAME" Which is why there is no reason for this discussion and no grounds for "confusion". --Khajidha (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Please read it carefully, the confusion is betweeen "Taiwan the island, and Taiwan the political entity, which is officially Republic of China" as stated above ELHK | 〒 04:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
When people type 'Taiwan' they are looking for the political entity. Hence, it comes here. That's the end of story. There is no confusion. If you made a mistake while searching, lesson learned. LordAtlas (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Taiwan the political entity includes parts of Fujian and the Taiping island in South China Sea, while Taiwan the island does not. Therefore by using my proposed name, all potential confusion between the island itself and the political entity will be removed. ELHK | 〒 07:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Even if some incredibly small number of people are looking for "Taiwan the island", your proposal would confuse the much greater number of people who are looking for "Taiwan the political entity". Calling this page "Republic of China" would simply cause massive confusion with China. --Khajidha (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I've also considered the problem you stated so I proposed to rename the page to "Republic of China (Taiwan)" which will remove all the confusions. "Republic of China (Taiwan) is also used in official documents such as passports issued by ROC ELHK | 〒 09:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
No, such a name would be against our naming conventions and against the consensus established in previous discussions. On one particular point you raise, there is no confusion with “Taiwan” being the name of both the state and the geographical entity. This is quite common, especially with islands, even when they do not precisely cover the same territory. E.g. Australia is both the name of the country and the island, though they do not precisely coincide: the latter is Mainland Australia and does not include Tasmania which is part of the country.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Other examples of island countries treated in the same way are Iceland, Madagascar, Cuba, Jamaica and Sri Lanka. Having a single overview article covering both the country and the island, with greater detail in subarticles, avoids duplication and helps readers find what they are looking for more quickly. Kanguole 09:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
If a change is needed, wouldn't it be better to have as a title "Taiwan (Republic of China)', rather than the other way round? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The differnece between Taiwan and other island countries is that "Republic of China" is Taiwan's official name, not "Taiwan". And I also support Roger 8 Roger's suggeston of using a title "Taiwan (Republic of China)" instead of just "Taiwan" ELHK | 〒 10:55, 13 July 2017 (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.

Commenting on the above discussion. 🙄

Why was it closed so suddenly? Anyhow Wikipedia:COMMONNAME does not apply to misnomers, see Talk:Duchy of Warsaw#Move to Grand Duchy of Warsaw. --Codename Alex (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The argument that a name change would confuse users is flawed, changing it to "Taiwan (Republic of China)" wouldn't confuse anyone in fact it might even clear up why the nation is called "Chinese Daibei" in sports, and redirects exists solely to avoid such a confusion, someone looking for the Republic of Chine will be brought here, right? --Codename Alex (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC) (Just call me "Code")
The confusion is created by linking Taiwan and ROC in the title. It's a lot easier to just explain different names of it in the article body. There was also a long debate on the subject some years ago, which I still remember. Best to leave it. John Smith's (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Your comparison to the Duchy of Warsaw is flawed. Common names and formal names do not have to match (see Greece/Hellenic Republic), so "Taiwan" is not a misnomer. If this page were titled "Kingdom of China", THAT would be a misnomer of the type you are referring to over at Duchy of Warsaw. --Khajidha (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It is Han Chinese

Look up the source for Taiwan's Ethnic Group in the wikipedia page. It is called "Republic of China Yearbook 2014" and it specifically uses the term "Han Chinese". Stop changing that. Han Chinese is the correct term. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if the link goes to the Han Chinese or the Han Taiwanese page, but I see no reason that the word "Chinese" or "Taiwanese" needs to appear in the Ethnic Groups section of the infobox. Before your most recent edit the link went to the Han Chinese page, even though the link was piped so that it would display as Han. Thus, you did not change the destination of the link, you only changed how it was displayed. Before reverting my edit again, please explain why you feel that the word "Chinese" needs to be displayed after "Han" in this link. Phlar (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


BECAUSE IT SAYS "HAN CHINESE" IN THE SOURCE! LOOK UP THE SOURCE THAT IS USED FOR THE CITATION 5 (THE CITATION FOR TAWIAN'S ETHNIC COMPOSITION! THERE IS A PDF OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA YEARBOOK 2014 WITH ALL OF THE PAGES. ON PAGE 36, IN THE ETHNICITY CATEGORY, "HAN CHINESE" IS USED! IF YOU THINK I AM LYING WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THE TIME TO CLICK THE LINK AND LOOK UP PAGE 36 IN THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA YEARBOOK 2014? I WILL EVEN PUT THE LINK HERE MYSELF! http://www.ey.gov.tw/Upload/UserFiles/YB%202014%20all%20100dpi.pdf GO TO PAGE 36 ON IT! --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This has nothing to do with the term. This has to do with neutrality, general consistency, more importantly the Manual of Style. Alex ShihTalk 02:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
"Han Chinese" is neutral, the term isn't implying that you're not one or the other, a Han Chinese person living in Italy without any Taiwanese passport is still considered "a Han Chinese person", it's an ethnicity, and "Han Taiwanese" is a specific subgroup, not unlike "Hoa people" or "Chinese Filipino" ("Tsinoy") who are also still "Han Chinese". Omitting information 🛈 from a source because it serves a political agenda is the opposite of neutral. --1.55.183.244 (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here. If it is supported by the source, then you should use it. If you were truly unbiased, you would accept whatever the source says. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No one is disputing Han Chinese is not Han Chinese. Read what User:Phlar said again carefully, and read the link: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/China-related_articles#Ethnicity that I have provided for you carefully also. Have a look at other similar articles to familiarize yourself with conventions in English Wikipedia, and also have a search at the discussion archives as stated in the top of this talk page so that we don't have to repeat the same discussions over again. Thanks. Alex ShihTalk 08:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's disputing that Taiwanese Hans aren't ethnically Han Chinese. The page Han Taiwanese links to Han Chinese. It's a more specific subgroup of Hans that the race/ethnic group as a whole, like how the English are of Germanic origin. — Jon C.ॐ 10:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@ExGuardianNinja: Piping the Han Chinese link so it displays as Han isn't about bias or neutrality or following the source, it's simply a stylistic decision. As the Manual of Style says (thanks User:Alex Shih): When identifying people by ethnic group in China-related articles, refer to the Han people or Han rather than "Chinese people"... (emphasis added). The term "Han" is perfectly adequate. There is no need to add "Chinese" after it, especially not in the limited confines of the infobox. Note that the Hoklo link below it does not read "Hoklo Taiwanese" and the Aborigines link does not read "Taiwanese aborigines." Making the "Han" link read "Han Chinese" would be inconsistent with the others (and would violate the manual of style as already mentioned). Phlar (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@ExGuardianNinja: The ROC yearbook is a primary source. Primary sources don't carry the same weight as secondary ones, particularly for challenged claims. Szqecs (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Changes to lead 24 July 2017

The following changes are made to the lead section:

  1. The lead sentence is reverted until there is consensus for change.
  2. "neighbours" to "neighbors" since this article is mainly in American English.
  3. "Taiwan is the most populous state that is not a member of the United Nations, and also possesses the largest economy of any state outside of the UN." to "Taiwan is the most populous state that is not a member of the United Nations and the largest economy outside the UN." States are often referred to as economies, and there is no separate economy in Taiwan like Hong Kong in China.
  4. GDP ranking link to nominal

Szqecs (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: map(s) in the infobox

The community consensus is that only the first map should be included in the infobox. Alex ShihTalk 04:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

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.

Which map or maps should be used in the infobox? Recent proposals are a map showing administered areas only, and a map showing both administered and claimed areas. Kanguole 13:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Areas administered by the ROC/Taiwan (red)
Administered areas (dark green) and claimed areas (light green)
  • One map: administered areas only – The infobox should present straightforward factual information, but the expansive claims (including Mongolia and bits of Russia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Burma) are purely theoretical by now, controversial within Taiwan and ignored outside it. This technical issue should be mentioned at an appropriate point in the article body, but illustrating it in the infobox is undue weight. Kanguole 13:04, 9 July 2017 (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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Consensus needed

Please do not duplicate posts in talk pages to illustrate a point. Alex ShihTalk 02:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

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.

I inserted this above in 'change to lead'. I have copied it here under a specific heading so it is not lost in obscurity.

The consensus was, in your own words: "Alright I think we have a consensus to use "state" without link. Szqecs (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)" This followed a discussion about state v country (by a small group). The lead sentence covers a little bit more than state v country, much of which is POV. Therefore, there is no consensus relating to what to call this place. Taking an even wider view, this article is a cluster of different articles covering different topics, all squashed together. A complete rethink is needed. I suggest we try to obtain a consensus on 1/ what this article is about, and 2/ what it should be called. Please remember, we are not undoing a consensus, because one does not exist: we are creating consensus. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're replying to something reply to it in the same section so that there is context. Nothing is obscure if you format properly. Szqecs (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2017 (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.

Lead sentence

@Berting Li: The lead sentence was established by consensus. "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia." Changes to this should be discussed first. Szqecs (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The consensus was, in your own words: "Alright I think we have a consensus to use "state" without link. Szqecs (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)" This followed a discussion about state v country (by a small group). The lead sentence covers a little bit more than state v country, much of which is POV. Therefore, there is no consensus relating to what to call this place. Taking an even wider view, this article is a cluster of different articles covering different topics, all squashed together. A complete rethink is needed. I suggest we try to obtain a consensus on 1/ what this article is about, and 2/ what it should be called. Please remember, we are not undoing a consensus, because one does not exist: we are creating consensus. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is that without changing anything else, the definition of the topic is a "state". It is still a consensus even if it wasn't discussed the way you want. You're welcome to re-discuss this, but don't disregard other's opinion just because you don't agree. Szqecs (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If you mean an independent entity answerable to nobody else then 'sovereign state' is all that is needed. Is "Taiwan" a sovereign state? Not according to its own government, or to mainland China, or to numerous other UN members. The term 'self governing island' appeals to me because it explains the defacto reality without giving opinion. Common sense says that there is no point creating an article that defines 'Taiwan' as a sovereign state' when the govt of Taiwan itself disagrees. However, seeing as that is what you, and some others, have tried to do with this consensus, then you will have to accept a multitude of editorial problems, which is what is happening. This consensus amounts to nothing more than POV and should be regarded as invalid because it contradicts a basic WP principle. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The current term used is "state", not "sovereign state", so stop talking nonsense. As for your proposal, shall we also call China and North Korea "self-governing places"? This term is totally biased. Szqecs (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you now confirming that consensus has not established that Taiwan and ROC are one and the same thing, and that the consensus only dealt with calling it a state or a country. But if we do not know what we are referring to (because we have no consensus on whether Taiwan and ROC are the same or not), then how can we agree if it is a state, a country, an island, a province, a sovereign state, or anything else?

Now, before you start accusing me or any other editor of talking nonsense, please consider that you will inevitably get a whole host of confusing discussions if you insist on trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. That is what we are doing by treating Taiwan and ROC as the same. Please remember that this article is meant to be encyclopedic, not for a travel brochure. Wikipedia readers deserve better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether Taiwan and ROC are the same thing is discussed elsewhere and I have no interest in that. Consider it temporary if you will, but we have to define the topic because that is how Wikipedia works. Szqecs (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


@Berting Li: I agree with you that not everybody in the world agrees with the status of Taiwan as a state. I'm not just talking about the PRC alone, but other countries including in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world, do not agree that Taiwan is an independent state. As for the suggested wording "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia.", I think we all can agree that this statement is disputed and there is no consensus to include such wording in the official page.

So since there is no consensus, if that statement were to be included in the official page, we should at least mention that this article is disputed and the facts therein may contain inaccuracies, and invite contributions from the community to make this article more neutral. A notice on Wikipedia's policy of speaking from a neutral point of view (NPOV) should be included prominently on the article.

Otherwise, I suggest that we revert the wording to a previous version that abides by Wikipedia's NPOV policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie.lim (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Republic of China should not be redirected here

Taiwan is originally the name of a geographic region. Republic of China is a state. This article should be related only to Taiwan which is currently so. However, it is totally confusing when one types Republic of China into the search box and redirected to Taiwan. Republic of China is a state established in 1912 in mainland China with completely no relation to Taiwan before 1945, and has only become the de-facto state of Taiwan since 1949.-Miklcct (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It is only confusing to anyone who buys into the "1 China" delusion. Since 1949, China is the mainland state and Taiwan is the island state. Just because the leadership of Taiwan began as the leadership of China and the constitution was originally the constitution of China doesn't change the fact that the idea that current Taiwan is the "same state" as pre-1949 China is totally ludicrous. And the sooner the people of both states just get over themselves and FREAKING MOVE ON, the better the world will be. --Khajidha (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
No. This was thoroughly discussed five years ago, and the consensus was for the current arrangement. See Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20. If you want to change this it would need a similar discussion to overturn that consensus but that seems very unlikely to succeed. If anything in the five years since that discussion the consensus seems even clearer. The use of "Republic of China" has become even more historic and the country is overwhelmingly known as "Taiwan".--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The Netherlands is a state often called Holland. That doesn't make Holland the Netherlands. Stick to facts and you won't go far wrong.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell more people say "Netherlands" than "Holland". Szqecs (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven't heard anyone calling it Holland in DECADES. --Khajidha (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
There are two questions here:
  1. What should be the title of this article? The linked RM and various discussions since have repeatedly demonstrated a consensus for the common name of the state, i.e. "Taiwan".
  2. What should readers get if they search for "Republic of China"? The usual way to settle that is to ask whether there is a primary topic for the term. That depends on whether you're interested in current events or in history, and as JohnBlackburne says the use of this term with reference to the present is increasingly rare. If there isn't a primary topic, that argues that "Republic of China" should be either a disambiguation page or a WP:CONCEPTDAB page. Previous discussions of this issue can be found here and at Talk:Republic of China (disambiguation).
Kanguole 16:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
As seen above there are still many people who think the state is best called "Republic of China". They are best served by the redirect. This article is still the primary topic, as the only modern use for "Republic of China". There is a disambiguation page, linked in the first lines, for other uses of "Republic of China". but none of them comes close to challenging the primary topic, being either historic or dependent on the modern ROC. A concept dab is even worse – there is no "broad conceot" for the "Republic of China", different from the current article at Taiwan, and it would be in danger of quickly becoming a content fork, as editors who disagree with the consensus established five years ago seek to create an article reflecting their views.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Historical topics can continue to be important, and people continue to talk and write about them, so it does not follow that modern uses of the phrase "Republic of China" are exclusively about Taiwan. Readers of volumes 12 and 13 of The Cambridge History of China, for example, might search for "Republic of China", and would be surprised to be sent here.
The move discussion you reference decided that this article should be called "Taiwan", but did not specify that "Republic of China" should be a redirect. In fact the closing statement suggested that it could be an article on the government and history of the ROC.
As for the broad concept, I would suggest that the article currently at History of the Republic of China could serve. Kanguole 17:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Although in modern terms Republic of China = Taiwan, the existence of the redirect implies that Republic of China is identical to Taiwan. This is clearly not the case as ROC has no relationship with Taiwan in a significant period of her history. The discussions years before did not specify that the redirect should be here, but only specified that this article should be named Taiwan. I also agreed that this is the Taiwan article because it focuses on the modern state but I think that the redirect is simply ignorant to the integral part of the ROC history before she came (or, in some groups political view, exiled) to Taiwan.
Furthermore, French Fifth Republic also exists as a separate article to France, and it is always the French government since the establishment. However. ROC is the Chinese government before 1949 and the Taiwanese government after 1949, and I see no reason to the redirect. -Miklcct (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It does not imply that Republic of China and Taiwan mean exactly the same. Only that it is the primary topic, for that name. If someone types "Republic of China" into the search box, what is the most likely article they are looking for? It is the country, Taiwan. Until 2012 the article was located at Republic of China and although the consensus in 2012 was for the article to be moved, there were then and still are editors who think the article should be at Republic of China. I.e. they think it is best called "Republic of China".The best thing therefore is to have it as a redirect to where the article actually is.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The official name of "Taiwan" is the Republic of China, removing the redirect would serve absolutely no one (except for either pro-Communist Party of China or pro-Taiwanese independence editors), and claiming that this article should only focus on the island 🏝 of Taiwan negates the article Geography of Taiwan completely. Comparably it would be like deleting the redirect "United States of America" because it's commonly called the "United States" and make it a disambiguation to the Confederate States of America ans the current U.S.A. --1.55.183.244 (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

We run a grave risk in assuming that there are two separate states - China and Taiwan. That amounts to twisting the facts to suit a POV. There is only one China. The complication is that it has two governments that happen to control two separate parts of China. That may not suit some of the above editors who want to create the artificial situation of two states because 'most people think' there are two states. That assumption is simplistic in the extreme and will only lead to contradictions and confusion. The average reader of WP deserves better. This article is (I think) about the part of China that is a few islands off the east coast. It is not about the actual island of Taiwan and it is not about the ROC, most of which is not controlled by the govt of the ROC. In that sense both headings - Taiwan and ROC - are incorrect. We need to think harder than just to take the easy option of choosing either Taiwan, the ROC, or a combination of both. Perhaps the term 'Chinese Taipei', horribly artificial though it is, does have some merit because it does identify the part of China that this article is about without making any incorrect factual assumptions. Both "Taiwan" and ROC" could be redirected here. Consensus was created years ago? Well, consensus can be wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It is also running a risk in assuming that Taiwan (island) is part of China because many reliable sources do not agree with that. As for the nature of this article, I think it is not about any island and is about a political entity called Republic of China, which claims to be the sole legal representative of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Consensus is never wrong, as consensus is how things are decided here. So once consensus is settled on an issue, that is the right answer to whatever is being decided
Consensus can change though. Over time facts change to make an old decision wrong. A non-notable subject becomes notable, for example, or evidence is uncovered to support a different outcome. In fact in this case it did change, with the move from Republic of China to Taiwan reflecting an update from the previous consensus. If anything the arguments now are even stronger for the current name, as over time the formal name is less and less known, and the country is overwhelmingly referred to as "Taiwan", even by its government.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. You are correct that consensus is never wrong: it is also never right - it is what it is, consensus. That though is a pedantic point in this discussion. To say 'the decision reached by consensus was wrong' would be better grammatically and for that old decision to be wrong we do not necessarily need new facts. We might perhaps need new facts to open a discussion that leads to a new consensus that leads to a change in the article, if that is what you mean. However, I do not want to be dragged off course by technicalities but instead stick to some general points. The fact that there are so many editors who have an issue with this article (not just one or two) confirms that the decision reached years ago by consensus might need to be looked at again. Confusing Taiwan with the ROC, as this article does, opens all sorts of contradictions and illogical statements. For example, the formal name of Taiwan is not the ROC, it is Taiwan, which forms part of the ROC. Any debate about secession movements from the ROC within Taiwan, and within the ROC govt, is another matter and should not be muddled up with the 'name' debate, which it usually is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I would like to point out that it's not conforming to WP:NPOV to assert that Taiwan (island) is part of the ROC because there are reliable sources which disagree with that opinion. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There may be many differing opinions, but we should include sources that are neutral. So yes, I agree with Matt that we should remove any wording that implies Taiwan or the ROC is recognised as an independent state. There are reliable sources that strongly disagree with such an assertion. The importance here is to correctly word the article in a neutral tone. For example, "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia." is an assertion that is not neutral as there are reliable sources disputing this assertion, however, "Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China (ROC), is an area claimed in its entirety by the People's Republic of China (PRC). Although its government maintains all the characteristics of one belonging to a typical independent state, it is not recognised as a state in the United Nations and only 20 countries in the world have official diplomatic relations with it." I believe my statements here are more neutral and acceptable to all. Always leave no room for disputes if we are making an assertion. Katie.lim (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Your belief is wrong. The current introduction section is neutral and explains the complicated history (e.g. about the UN, the fact that the ROC was a founding member is not less important than that it is now a non-member). The question may be what the word "state" means here. If you believe in the declarative theory of statehood (say, the Montevideo Convention), the sentence is obviously correct. If you believe "state" means "recognised by most other countries", do you agree that the PRC was not a state before the 1970s? —Kusma (t·c) 09:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The current introduction section is of course not neutral. Even from the viewpoint of the declarative theory of statehood (say, the Montevideo Convention), the sentence is still controversial. See the reliable source below.[1] --Matt Smith (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stephen D. Krasner (2001). Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities. New York City: Columbia University Press. p. 46. ISBN 0231121792. Many have argued that Taiwan qualifies for statehood, since Taiwan has its own government that controls a population on the territory of the island of Taiwan and conducts its own foreign affairs, and since Taiwan has already been recognized in the past as an independent state. But to make such an argument, one has to reject China's claim of sovereignty over the territory of the Taiwan island, a claim that has been recognized by most states in the world.
Thank you Matt Smith for giving another example of the confusion that occurs by veering from the official facts. You raise an interesting point in international law but it is off topic and not relevant to this discussion about this article's name. In addition, it is nothing to do with breaching wp:npov by preferring one opinion over another, wp:rs or not, and there are plenty of reliable sources that say the opposite anyway. In fact, the assertion that Taiwan is the name of ROC, or vice versa, could amount to a wp:npov breach because it flies in the face of legal reality accepted in international law. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I know it's not relevant to this discussion, but I thought it still needs to be pointed out so that the spreading of potentially misleading information could be prevented. Although we have the right to prefer an opinion over another, the expression of such a preference should be avoided in an irrelevant discussion. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Matt. This article is violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy and it is certainly on topic. We should remove or change any non-neutral wording (such as the implication that Taiwan is an independent state) to conform to Wikipedia's rules. Not everybody in the world agrees with you, therefore we have no consensus to include such wording. Since there is no consensus, we should change the wording to something more neutral and acceptable by everybody. Katie.lim (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Consensus does not require that "everybody in the world" agree. See WP:CONSENSUS for an explanation. There was a clear consensus in 2012 (see Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20) when this article was renamed from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan," which led to the redirect that is the topic of this current Talk section. If you want to revisit the topic and try to achieve a new consensus, you are entitled to do so. But claiming that there isn't, and never was, a consensus is disingenuous. Phlar (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is going to happen as a result of this discussion, but I would like to point out Republic of China (1912–49) as the best existing alternate redirect target. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017

Taiwan is province of China and not a state or country 72.71.236.221 (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

While it is not conforming to WP:NPOV to assert that Taiwan is a state or country (the current article is failing on this matter), it is not conforming to WP:NPOV to assert that Taiwan is a province of China, neither. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Per above. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2017

Please change the caption "The ruling DPP has traditionally leaned in favour of Taiwan independence and rejects the so-called "One-China policy"." to "The ruling DPP has traditionally leaned in favour of Taiwan independence and rejects the One-China policy." (i.e. removal of "so-called" and the quotation marks surrounding One-China policy.), given that the phrase "so-called" is quite subjective and not neutral. Per WP:NPOV:"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". --123.161.171.194 (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Dr. K. 02:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan/Archive_25&oldid=1073170229"