This is an archive of past discussions about Taiwan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The 2nd paragraph of the article states 'when Dutch and Spanish colonies opened the island to mass Han immigration'. This is not true, because except for minor expeditions of visiting fishermen and traders from Fujian opposite the Taiwan strait, no 'mass migration' by the Han Chinese to Taiwan ever took place during the 16 years of Spanish rule in the northern tip of the island and 38 years rule by the Dutch later.
It is only after Koxinga arrived and defeated the Dutch then did the first wave of 'mass migration' by the Han Chinese started.
The proposed edition are as follows:
Original: "The island of Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa, was inhabited by aborigines before the 17th century, when Dutch and Spanish colonies opened the island to mass Han immigration."
Proposed: The island of Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa, was inhabited by aborigines before the 17th century, when mass Han Chinese migration started after Koxinga defeated the Dutch colonists in 1661.
As described in the referenced text in the body of the article (which the introduction is supposed to summarize), mass Han migration did begin under the Dutch, who encouraged immigrants from Fujian to come and establish farms on the land they controlled, so that the Dutch could tax them to make the colony profitable. The Spanish did not organize their short-lived colony this way, but their expulsion by the Dutch led to further expansion of the Dutch enterprise. The Zhengs then adopted the civil administration set up by the Dutch. Kanguole00:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
There certainly is an interesting bifurcation going on here with this particular interpretation of how this sentence should be worded. Two groups, each with their own perspective, are wanting to argue on the point of who opened the island to the Han Chinese.
"...When mass Han Chinese migration started after Koxinga defeated the Dutch colonists in 1661." In one corner, you have Han immigration coming as the result of Koxinga driving out the Dutch, as if Koxinga, no sooner had he driven the Dutch away, immediately set up immigration centers where he personally welcomed newcomers - perhaps with a beaming, beautiful smile and a sweet "Welcome — we're happy to have you here!" countenance on his face, directing people by the thousands to come and join him. That is a lovely image.
"...When Dutch and Spanish colonies opened the island to mass Han immigration." On the other side, you have the magnanimous Dutch, "peacefully opening the island" upon their sudden decision to quickly leave. (I can almost hear the Dutch saying "Well it wasn't because of Koxinga!" while at the same time muttering under their breaths "We knew the Han would be trouble the minute we got here.") But now, in a 90 degree shift, the Dutch — Like Koxinga — want to be seen as opening warm, welcome centers of immigration after thoughtfully choosing to leave. Even if by "choosing" what they really mean is that they were unceremoniously thrown out on their behinds, in what was perhaps an apropos exit for removing presumptuous, arrogant guests who had overstayed their welcome by far. How lovely this version sounds too.
I wonder, what do the Han say about why they came there? Has anyone asked them? Something tells me I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they had been forced to go there by circumstances no doubt created or exacerbated by these very same dueling forces both now wishing to be seen as the ones who "opened" the island. spintendo 10:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
In the infobox, the percentages of the various ethnic groups add up to more than 100%. It also lists new immigrants as a separate ethnicity, which does not make sense. According to government statistics [1], 66% of transnational spouses are from the PRC. The transnational spouses make up the majority of the new immigrants. So the chances are most of these new immigrants are of Han descent, specifically waisheng variety.
According to the PRC's OP(One China Policy), Taiwan is a province in People's Republic of China. Not a state named ROC.
Please change the page "Taiwan(ROC)" into
@Phlar: Prior to my edits, the article used mostly British spellings: colour, centre, defence, neighbour, behaviour and kilometre. Per MOS:CONSISTENCY, the spellings should be made consistent. Szqecs (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
It's plainly not true that "the article used mostly British spellings." Here's a summary of the situation in this 27 June version prior to your edits:
Word
British occurrences
US occurrences
Comments
authorised/authorized
0
1
behaviour/behavior
1
0
colour/color
1
0
centre/center
3
5
"center" appears another 9 times in non-Taiwanese proper names and citations
characterised/characterized
0
1
criticised/criticized
0
3
defence/defense
9
4
"defense" appears another 9 times in non-Taiwanese proper names and citations
What I meant is that there are more words, not instances of words, spelled exclusively British. There isn't much significance if the word "program" gets repeated 4 times in section Economy and industry to bump up the numbers in your criteria. Also, 'center' only appears once non-proper. Szqecs (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I've added metre, millimtre & theatre to the table. My point is that the article does NOT predominantly use British or US spelling, it uses a near 50-50 mix. The more important question is, does one spelling style actually prevail over the other on the ground in Taiwan? Phlar (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how that's important. Barely anyone in Taiwan reads English Wikipedia, and most people don't prefer one over the other. The MOS only considers English-speaking countries, which Taiwan is not one. Szqecs (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
It is very important how that country handles its version of English. When we handle tennis player bios, we use the style of English that's prevalent in the player's country. Here we have an article on Taiwan and in Taiwan the preference is American English. I pulled some articles and blogs here, here, here and here as an example. I'm not saying to use these as article sources, just to show the general attitude of the population of Taiwan. I'm sure there is some mixing of spellings in the country but it is surely mostly American style English that is taught, so why would we use anything different in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is international space and prefers no variety over the other per MOS:ENGVAR. What you said about tennis players only applies to English-speaking countries. Szqecs (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
And to countries who teach English a particular way... as Taiwan does. If Taiwan prefers American English, why on earth would you want British English in its Encyclopedia article? It is more MOS:TIES warranted than MOS:Engvar. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
And what about people who were never taught English? Why should they be represented as speaking the American variety? Also none of the sources you cited actually looked at the education system and the word choices. Szqecs (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I've added stats (see table above) for the "-ise/-ize" words. It's looking heavily slanted toward US spelling.... Phlar (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Standard British spelling uses -ise, not -ize, Oxford Spelling is just one variant that isn't even accepted at Oxford University. Anyway, if you take the -ise/-ize words out of the table, it's still 23 instances of "Oxford" spelling vs. 25 instances of US spelling. I agree with Fyunck(click) that we should be using US spelling here, because it predominates in Taiwan. Phlar (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how you counted but 'center' only appears once non-proper, so it's 23 vs 21. As I said, there is no policy to use the variety of English common in non-English speaking countries because there is no significance. For example, most people in Taiwan don't put a space before brackets. Most people don't distinguish between plural and singular, or past and present tenses. Does it mean it is a style that the article should follow? Szqecs (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Most countries and most people in the world use commonwealth English. So for a non English speaking country, I don't see why using the American variety is so appealing, especially when the audience is international. Szqecs (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I think we should standardize on US English for this article. Not sure about the other articles—wouldn't that require a broader, Taiwan-related-article-wide discussion & consensus? Phlar (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
And if you include all the date format changes done to Taiwan related articles, it's probably closer to 1000 articles this year alone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see that sentence. Feel free to revert them. By the same rule then, this article should not be standardised. Szqecs (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted a bunch of these edits, and warned Szqesc against using AWB for this type of controversial edits. —Kusma (t·c) 09:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): I changed the date format because there is MOS:DATEUNIFY, and it is much easier to unify across the board than to look at every date in every article. I chose DMY because most dates on Wikipedia are DMY and most countries use DMY. When I unified Taiwan to DMY, no one said anything. I don't get why you are so triggered over this.
As for spelling, the policy says articles shouldn't "simply" be changed for spelling. I made other changes including corrections. By reverting them, you are the one making articles worse, not me. Szqecs (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Look, you were asked to revert the non-consensus changes yourself. You didn't seem to do it. I found some of your incorrect changes and fixed them manually, word by word. In this case you changed a date format that had been in place for years and years. It got reverted once when you did it in 2017 and I just reverted it as part of your problem edits mentioned above. There was no real reason to change this particular article to dmy when all was fine with mdy. I actually happen to like dmy better because I don't have to add a comma, but in tennis articles we use mdy for American tennis players, dmy for British tennis players, and whatever form any other country uses for their players. Taiwan uses American style English but I actually have no idea what their date format is. What I objected to was your brazen changing of the format for no reason at all, especially with all the other English conversions you did that have had to be corrected (and still need correcting). Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
note - per google and our own wikipedia article at Date format by country, Taiwan never uses DMY. They generally use YMD and sometimes MDY. They identify with American style English. So one thing we shouldn't be doing is going through all the Taiwan related articles and changing them to DMY. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
You either didn't read or didn't understand my comment. your brazen changing of the format for no reason at all. As I said, the reason is that there is a policy for consistency, MOS:DATEUNIFY. There were thousands of inconsistent articles, and it would be a lot more effort to look at every date in every article than to just unify all of them. Taiwan never uses DMY. They generally use YMD and sometimes MDY. By your argument, we should be using YMD then. We don't because that's not how it works. What you said about tennis players does not apply to non-English speaking countries. Szqecs (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
MOS:DATEUNIFY says a couple things... 1) "Dates in article body text should all use the same format." It already did and you changed them to another format. It also says "Access and archive dates in an article's citations should all use the same format" and "Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format." And this is PER ARTICLE... not across all of wikipedia as you seem to think. So you must be reading MOS incorrectly. 2) Just below that it says "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation." Taiwan has strong language and date style ties to the USA. It looks like you want things a certain way so you have done mass changes to hundreds of articles. Administrators have asked you to stop, and I'm asking again. Revert yourself on all those articles you changed and if for some reason you won't do it then stop complaining when others do it for you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
And this is PER ARTICLE... not across all of wikipedia as you seem to think. How many times should I say this? I know it is per article, but it is a lot more effort to go through every date in every article and skip the consistent articles, especially when most articles were inconsistent. Articles being consistently MDY or consistently DMY have no difference in quality, so I don't get why you insist on reverting. Taiwan has strong language and date style ties to the USA. You misunderstood the policy. I'll cite it again. "Articles on topics (e.g. Special municipality (Taiwan)) with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country (Taiwan) should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation (Taiwan)." Special municipality (Taiwan) has no ties to the US and Taiwan most commonly uses YMD, but it is not English-speaking, so it doesn't apply at all. As for admins, they told me to stop using AWB for this, which I have. There is no policy against making edits others don't agree with. Szqecs (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
But you have also been told that "Controversial changes done manually instead of by AWB isn't going to help." This has been discussed here and you don't seem to care about any consequences if you keep doing it. I would be careful about taking that path as I would assume that someone will eventually bring it to AnI. As for it taking "more effort" to do it correctly.... well that's just the way it is sometimes in life. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
As for it taking "more effort" to do it correctly.... well that's just the way it is sometimes in life. Except there is a policy for that too: WP:IGNORE. I am improving the articles by making dates consistent using a method much more effective than one strictly following rules. You on the other hand are not making any improvements by reverting. Szqecs (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Wow, This conversation appears to be pointless. I guess we'll just see what happens if you continue to change everything to British spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
While I personally dislike MDY dates and mostly use British spelling, my general and mostly unverifiable perception is that most people not in the Commonwealth either don't really care or use American English spelling. If the article was originally mostly in American English it should stay in American English, or alternatively all of the words with variant spellings could be replaced or abbreviated to avoid the issue. Jc86035 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Szqecs: I don't care either way about the date format as long as it's consistent within each article (you are not improving wikipedia by changing it across articles). But regarding spelling, when you took articles whose spelling was predominantly or 100% American and changed them to British, you were in blatant violation of MOS:RETAIN. The only way your action could be justified under MOS:ENGVAR would be if either (1) there were a consensus among editors that this specific article should be changed, or (2) there were a general consensus for standardizing the spelling style for a specific set of articles, such as all Taiwan-related articles. We currently have neither (1) nor (2), so you should stop globally changing spelling from American to British, unless the article already uses predominantly British spelling. Phlar (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Phlar: Refer to my previous comment. I made thousands of articles with inconsistent dates consistent within the articles (including Taiwan, and no one said anything). That is improving by your definition. It's just that some articles that were already consistent also got changed in the process. Unless you have an equally effective way to edit thousands of articles, I believe this is a legitimate situation to apply WP:IGNORE. Szqecs (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I don’t care either way about the date format. But you need to stop changing articles that use predominantly American spelling to British. Making other edits at the same time is still a violation of MOS:RETAIN. Phlar (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
the fact that some people use americanisms in asia because of exposure to american media etc does not mean we shouldn't use standard English on a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Please fix this problem
The main article of Taiwan, needs a good organization and a brief summary of the information; especially in the introduction, because it contains a lot of the enormous amount of historical facts that will confuse the reader of the article, especially if he is one of those who do not know the history of the island. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
This article should mainly talk about the Republic of China, which de facto only controls Taiwan area from 1949. Thus, the irrelevant content of this article, like the history of Taiwan, should be deleted, but the relevant content of this article, like the history and other every aspects of the Republic of China, which de facto only controls Taiwan area from 1949, should be remained. In addition, this article's title should be changed to "Republic of China". My suggestions can make this article only reflect the Republic of China, which de facto only controls Taiwan area from 1949, and avoid the mixture of the Republic of China from 1949 and Taiwan.
Does WP:RGW says anything relevant about this specific case? I already suggested to rename the article to Republic of China and remove anything not related to the state.
I can't understand why the English speakers decided to mix the history of Taiwan between the history of the ROC. Most of the people here used the most common name, but nobody invoked the common sense when starting adding contents about Taiwan in an article supposed to be related to the ROC. Even if the title is kept as Taiwan, the Taiwan-specific contents should be moved to the relevant article, as "Taiwan" is an ambiguous term (the colloquial name of the ROC, a region if the ROC, a region of the PRC, etc), and the precise naming and common sense should supersede the most common name (as the Spanish Wikipedia community decided). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
This isn't the Spanish Wikipedia. What makes sense to that community has no bearing on the decisions of this one. --Khajidha (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll just note that the history chapter of the government's Republic of China Yearbook (appendix iv in the most recent edition, chapter 3 in older editions) has three sections: Birth of the Republic of China, History of Taiwan, and The ROC on Taiwan (1945– ). Apparently they consider all of these to be important parts of the history of the modern state. Kanguole02:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no problem, there is no confusion. The article for any country will contain information about the history of its territory before the state formed. This one is no different.--Khajidha (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
People who really understand the histories of the two entities (Taiwan Island and the ROC) can easily spot the problem and confusion. That's why topics like this one are opened, and I'm sure this won't be the last time we see them. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
On the contrary, the article is quite clear. It is the complainers who are confused by their own nonsensical POVs.--Khajidha (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
So, you sistematically claimed the ones who want to rename back "China" and Taiwan to "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" are worng, but you never explained why. Several people claimed this is a mess, and I mentioned the Spanish Wikipedia as example how to do the things well, and the community provided very strong reasons to use the official names instead of the colloquial ones (see the whole discussion at the Spanish Wikipedia). If you believe you're right, don't claim others are wrong. This article is a messy mix of pears with apples, and you're the only who don't admit it; titles would be kept, but contents should be restructured. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't forget or deny that your assertion is a POV, too. To people who don't agree with you, your POV is just nonsensical. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm still waiting on y'all to explain what the confusion is. The standing consensus is that this article and its title meets the standards of common name and common sense. Conversely, the approach at the Spanish Wikipedia seems to fail both of those (from my point of view) and would thus be a detrimental change if enacted here. Discussion HERE (not at the irrelevant-to-this-article Spanish Wikipedia) has decided that the reasons are stronger for this presentation. --Khajidha (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The confusion had already been explained in this and the previous discussions. Again, it has been pointed out that the content mixed the histories of two different entities, Taiwan Island (geographical entity) and the ROC (political entity). In my opinion, the History section is making it looks like that the ROC was under Japanese rule, and that's ridiculous. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I fail to see how you come to that conclusion, as the ROC isn't even mentioned until the next paragraph, where the foundation of said state is mentioned. --Khajidha (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The ROC is already mentioned in the very first line of the article. This article talks about the ROC, but the History section is talking about the periods of different regimes' rules to Taiwan Island. That's an obvious problem. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
And the United States article mentions that polity in its first line but starts its history section with the Bering land bridge 15000 years ago. It is standard format for country articles and doesn't seem to confuse anybody on any article other than here. Which is why I say that the problem isn't with the article, it is with those complaining. --Khajidha (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Both Taiwan (island) and the ROC are highly controversial entities with unusual histories and statuses, and the United States isn't a comparable example. If no one says the United States article has problems, it probably has no problem. But there have been people pointing out that this article has problems, and thus it apparently has problems. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
And every time these "problems" have been pointed out, discussion has determined that the article is as it should be. You are welcome to formally propose a specific change, but I do not expect the outcome to be any different. --Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the discussions have determined that the article is as it should be. What I have seen is that there has been no consensus between the two sides. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Changes have been discussed and proposed, but not implemented. That means there was no consensus to change, which means that the consensus to have the article this way stands. --Khajidha (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The controversies here are no worse than many other country articles, which the history of the political entity and geographical entity are not exactly the same. Which is pretty much all of them to some extent. E.g. where I am is the United Kingdom but it is called Britain for many purpose - its people are British for example. But the British Isles are not the same thing. The language is English and many people call the UK England but that too is not the same thing. Other names include Great Britain, used e.g. a lot in sport though again it formally refers to something different. This is both confusing and at times highly controversial. Taiwan is pretty simple by comparison: apart from a few minor islands the island and political state are the same, and there is no confusion calling both "Taiwan".--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds14:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Khajidha: We can assume there is effective consensus on the article in its present state, broadly speaking, because it has not been successfully changed in a significant way. Therefore when seeking consensus it's a positive consensus we seek - consensus to make a change. If you would care to propose a specific change we can discuss it and determine whether there is consensus. But this thread, as it stands, is butting up against WP:NOTAFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I think you are addressing your comment to the wrong person. I'm not the one asking for changes. I have no need to make a proposal to maintain the status quo.--Khajidha (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
So, why you insist in claiming others are wrong about keeping not just the name, but also the bag with pears and apples, and also oranges (the Taiwan Democratic State). As we already claimed, this article is supossed to be related with the "Republic of China", and contents of the history of the island (that also includes the former Republic of Formosa) should be minimal. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Problems of using the colloquial name
If the OP wants to open a move request that's up to them, but as it stands this is just complaining, and it's already devolving into failures of WP:AGF and WP:NPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In summary, the usage of the colloqual name is problematic, since "Taiwan" represent the following entities:
The name of a former country, formally called Taiwan Democratic State (known also as "Republic of Taiwan" or "Republic of Formosa")
Using the term "Taiwan" to refer the ROC seems to very trivial for some people, but is very problematic for the ROC people, specially authorities, because the communists chinese "don't like that" (this means, the PRC may enter in war with the Kuomintang), so, the situation of the China and the both states that claim the territories should not be taken trivially.
"Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" are unambiguous terms to refer the states.
Finally, Khajidha claimed the following the the PRC talk page:
Nope. Having the government officials running away and hiding on an island after their forces got their asses kicked in combat does not provide any sort of real state continuity. The people who set up the ROC on Taiwan may be the same as the ones who ruled the ROC as actual China, they may use the same constitutional framework, but it is ridiculous to consider them the same state. The ROC (China) fell, then the ROC (Taiwan) was founded. Anything else is simply delusional posturing.
Cherry picking one statement from a previous discussion on another article talk page (not linked) is not good form. And as was mentioned on the Talk:China page this request would require a move request which would, considering the preponderance of sources, almost certainly result in WP:SNOW opposing the move so this whole thing is something of a waste of time. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
You forgot to consider that everything is related (previous discussion and both articles), as renaming one article implies the renaming the other, as both are about the country called "China" (in the sense of the official name). --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
" It's inappropriate to impose one's own views on Wikipedia." Then we can look forward to you and Amitie 10g ceasing to try to do so? --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The difference here is I provided strong reasons why the offial name (for both countries) should be used, getting rid the non-state related contents, while you stay in a biased application on the common name, where in this case is very hard to apply. And your POV is reaffirmed by your pro-communist comments, bordering the trolling, providing weaker arguments than the user who wanted the same at the Spanish Wikipedia. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Alright, as this is devolving into name-calling, I'm going to hat this conversation. If you really want to open a move request that's on you, but I suspect it'll just end up being a colossal waste of everybody's time. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Content about ROC government pre-Taiwan incorrectly included in the right column
How do you edit the content in the right column? Under "Formation" it lists "Xinhai Revolution 10 October 1911" which has to do with the ROC government, but has nothing to do with Taiwan because it happened on the mainland. The same holds for the line "Republic proclaimed 1 January 1912". These things happened while Taiwan was under Japanese rule. This section should really start with "Taiwan transferred 25 October 1945".
I disagree with you. This article is about the regime Republic of China, which only controls Taiwan after 1949. However, the column "Formation" in this article's infobox is about history of the Republic of China. "Xinhai Revolution" and "proclamation of the Republic of China" are both important historic facts during the establishment of the Republic of China, which is a vital part of history of the Republic of China, so they should be remained. By the way, I agree it is necessary to rename this article as "Republic of China". There are more and more readers are misled by the current title of this article. They insist this article is about the area Taiwan, instead of the regime Republic of China, which only controls Taiwan after 1949 (however, the latter one is the right answer), and irrelevant to the same regime Republic of China, which controlled Chinese mainland between 1912 and 1949 (however, the fact and reality is opposite). Some readers are even misled to endorse Taiwan independence movement, which is so biased and contradicts One-China policy, an important international consensus recognized, accepted, respected and obeyed by most countries around the world. The history mentioned by this article should only introduce history of the Republic of China because this article is about the regime Republic of China, which only controls Taiwan after 1949. ––61.48.167.67 13:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The article is about the Republic of China, an entity whose common name is "Taiwan" these days. Whatever title you choose for this article is going to be confusing for some people. —Kusma (t·c) 13:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
People who don't know anything about China tend to assume there is a country called "China" (where "made in China" things come from) and a country called "Taiwan" (where "made in Taiwan" things come from). For a reputable newspaper that uses this convention, look at the Guardian: [2]. If you search for "Taiwan" and suddenly get information about a country called "People's Republic of China", that can be confusing. Not as confusing as learning where China Airlines is based, perhaps, but certainly unexpected. —Kusma (t·c) 16:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay. How about the url remains as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan and the lead text also remains as how it is, and just the title changes to "Republic of China"? --Matt Smith (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I support the idea to change the title to 'Republic of China' rather than 'Taiwan', because firstly, the polity on Taiwan is calling itself 'Republic of China', with 'Taiwan' officially being the name of the island as well as 1 of 2 provinces under the ROC; secondly the name 'Taiwan' as denoting the polity is at the center of disputes between Beijing and Taipei, and within the island iself between the pan-blue and pan-green blocs, so using 'Taiwan' is clearly taking a side in this dispute, if Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, then 'Republic of China' would be far better than 'Taiwan'; and thirdly, the ROC after 1949 does control territories beyond Taiwan, which currently includes Fukien province close to the shore of the mainland, and historically also the Zhejiang province which was abandoned in the 1950s. Tree2sprig (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, I'd suggest we divide 'Republic of China' into 'Republic of China (1911-1949)' and 'Republic of China (1949-)' for the sake of clarity. Tree2sprig (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. You are right, no matter what evidence/reason is given, the result is always already set. For any individual, spending personal time to challenge organized and paid lobby groups would be ill-advised. So I'll just leave my comments.
Naming the article as 'Taiwan' is against NPOV.
1.1.The PRC claims TW as a province of PRC, is against TW independence, yet has established official relations with the 'ROC' authorities on TW, see Cross-Strait relations
1.2.The pan-blue parties claim TW as part of the ROC, is against TW independence.
1.3.The pan-green parties support TW independence, is against unification with PRC, yet all current/past presidents from these parties takes/took the title of 'President of ROC', not 'President of TW'.
Where's the middle ground in these various claims? Surely not TW! Tree2sprig (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
One more reason for using 'ROC'. 'America' is sometimes used to denote the USA, yet the title of the country's page on Wikipedia is United States, not 'America'; 'Great Britain' is sometimes used to denote the UK, yet the title of the country's page on Wikipedia is United Kingdom, not 'Great Britain'; then, 'Taiwan' is sometimes used to denote the ROC, why shouldn't the title of the polity's page on Wikipedia be Republic of China rather than Taiwan ?Tree2sprig (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
None of that is relevant. Pages are titled what the entity is commonly referred to as in English. In this case, that is Taiwan. --Khajidha (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I mean no offense, but your argument is deliberately evading the question of NPOV, while making ambiguous claims over 'commonly referred to' names. Can you provide RS to prove TW's more 'commonly referred to' than ROC? Of the 190+ UN-recognized countries in the world, all but 18 officially consider the polity a part of China, and all 17 countries currently maintaining diplomatic relations with the polity calls it ROC instead of TW, so it's hard for your claim to stand.
And for the NPOV,
PRC considers TW a PRC province, against TW independence, but tolerates the use of ROC in official dealings.
Pan-blue considers TW a ROC province, against TW independence.
Pan-green promotes TW independence, against unification with PRC, but tolerates the use of ROC when it rules/ruled the polity.
Clearly ROC is the most neutral name, while TW is not. Tree2sprig (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
This isn't actually clear from your line of argument. It would support that there is clearly no explicit WP:NPOV impediment to calling the article Republic of China rather than Taiwan, but not the MOS:COMMONNAME argument that more people know the relationship between China and Taiwan than the relationship between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. With regard to the web address thing, right now Republic of China is a redirect to Taiwan so whether people go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_china they end up at the same place. Taiwan. So from a technical perspective, what is being proposed here is to change the redirect / target relationship so that Taiwan is the redirect and RoC is the target. I don't support that because I don't believe a case has been made for it being the right choice from an MOS:COMMONNAME perspective, but I'm not concerned about either from an WP:NPOV perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. The article is at the correct title per WP:COMMONNAME. As for the sources asked for, try any of the news stories about this place in the last several decades. A basic search for Taiwan shows nearly 1 billion results, the same search for "Republic of China" (excluding sources containing "People's") shows less than 50 million. While basic Google searches aren't definitive, that level of difference is pretty compelling. As for Tree2sprig's point about "Of the 190+ UN-recognized countries in the world, all but 18 officially consider the polity a part of China, and all 17 countries currently maintaining diplomatic relations with the polity calls it ROC instead of TW, so it's hard for your claim to stand. " I'll just point out that Wikipedia does not necessarily follow official usages, not even the official usages of the UN. Just ask anyone from Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, or East Timor. --Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
To Simonm223: as you've confessed, your objection is based on your stance that you aren't concerned about NPOV, but unfortunately NPOV does matter. Calling the polity 'Taiwan' instead of 'ROC' is clearly consistent with the agenda of the pro-independence pan-green bloc, but going against both those of the PRC and the pan-blue, and thus going against NPOV.Tree2sprig (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
To Khajidha: your method is seriously flawed. Remember, Taiwan is not only used by some to denote the polity, but is also the name of the island, the name of 1 of 2 provinces of ROC, and the name of the supposed province of PRC. Of that nearly 1 billion results of yours, how many of them are acutally used to denote the polity? How many are used for other purposes? For example, a page about 'animals in Taiwan' or 'travel to Taiwan' has nothing to do with a preference to call the polity 'TW' instead of 'ROC', but is merely about the island. Furthermore, my mentioning of the fact that no country calling the polity 'TW' is aimed to show you're wrong to claim 'TW' is more commonly used than 'ROC', so you're making yet another mistake by interpreting it as suggesting Wikipedia pages should follow UN nomenclature standards. BTW, under UN standards, neither ROC nor TW is accepted to call the polity LOL.Tree2sprig (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
As I'm not paid for endless entangling, I'll make it clear one last time. For those who refuse to see the neutrality problem, nothing can change their mind.
Calling the polity 'Taiwan' is supported by 1/3 of the parties involved, while being opposed by the other 2/3.
Calling the polity 'ROC' is also supported by 1/3 of the parties involved, while being tolerated by the other 2/3.
So, by comparison, "animals in Jamaica" or "travel to Jamaica" has nothing to do with the polity but only the island? You are trying to draw a distinction that isn't made by most sources. And what other countries use in official contexts is (at best) of only extremely minor importance to the general usage in the language. --Khajidha (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy also allows POV names, if that is the most common name. See WP:POVNAME. If you want this page moved, you will have to show that ROC is the more common name than Taiwan. --Khajidha (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
You forgot that the vast majority of people are neither pan-green, pan-blue nor mainlanders. They typically talk of "China" and "Taiwan", like the [3]New York Times or the [4]Guardian. Moving "Taiwan" to "Republic of China" is less natural than moving "China" to "People's Republic of China", which comes with similar NPOV non-problems, but at least wouldn't be confusing. —Kusma (t·c) 13:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I have again restored the sentence in the status paragraph about how the issue is reflected in Taiwanese politics. One of the key things about Taiwan is its disputed status, which makes this different from other country articles. That this issue is the primary dividing line in local politics is particularly distinctive, and thus discussed at length in the article. Since the lead should summarize the article, a brief mention is appropriate. Kanguole13:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I have placed a few more cleanup tags in the sentence you re-added. The problem with this brief mention of yours is that local politics in any country is complex and cannot be accurately summarised in one or two sentences. In Taiwanese politics, there is also a major divide between labourers and business owners, and a major divide between funding in the north and south. It is also unclear what "both sides" and "moderated" means to the average reader. Ythlev (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Now you're just tag bombing. You've gone from claiming it shouldn't be mentioned to saying it should be expanded. "both sides" refers to the two sides mentioned in the previous clause, and most people know what "moderated" means. What better source do you have in mind to replace a scholarly study focussed on Taiwan party politics? Kanguole17:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I still think it doesn't belong in the lead but if it is to be included, it needs to be written properly. "both sides" refers to the two sides mentioned in the previous clause The previous clause does not have a subject. Does that mean certain politicians or parties or policies? What better source do you have in mind Something that isn't 13 years old. My point remains that it is inappropriate to summarise local politics with this particular issue. Go to any news website in Taiwan and head to politics section. How many stories are about independence v unification? Ythlev (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I have added another source and expanded a little. The literature on the topic is quite consistent in saying that Taiwan is unique in that the major political cleavage is based on identity and relations with China, though parties on both sides engage flexibly on a range of other issues. Kanguole01:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The current map was decided on in an RFC (structured discussion) here. If you want to replace it, you'll need to get consensus for your change. I'd suggest reading that discussion first, though the other map considered there is a bit different from the one you propose. Kanguole15:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@BushelCandle: I didn't remove the paragraph because I don't like it. According to WP:BALASP, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." This is an overview article of Taiwan and overview articles of countries don't mention this detail.[1][2] The main date format is already included in the infobox and that should be enough. Ythlev (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, there shouldn't be anything in the infobox that isn't explained somewhere in prose. The infobox is an overview of the overview. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Says who? Wikipedia MOS: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." That's what it's for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
De-emphasising PRC claim to Taiwan and military threats
This article is about Taiwan, not about the PRC. Content about other states should be given due weight by highlighting where they affect the subject. The PRC's claim to Taiwan itself does not affect Taiwan, it is the diplomatic blockade that leads to problems for Taiwan. And as much as the media reports on military threats, the last time there was any actual aggression was in the 1990s. The military threat of North Korea is not mention in the lead of South Korea. These aspects can be mentioned, but are currently given undue weight. Ythlev (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The diplomatic blockade, including the ROC's loss of the UN seat, comes from the PRC pushing its claim. It is bizarre to try to separate them. Nor is the military situation remotely comparable to Korea. Taiwan's situation is quite unique in this respect, and this would feature in any summary of the country. Kanguole09:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Nor is the military situation remotely comparable to Korea. Care to elaborate? A military threat is a military threat. "The PRC has since consistently claimed sovereignty over Taiwan and refused diplomatic relations with any country that recognizes the ROC" pretty much means the same as "Most international organizations in which the PRC participates either refuse to grant membership to Taiwan or allow it to participate only as a non-state actor". The reason I think a split is in order is because many readers don't care much for the history of countries and want to focus on the present. The second sentence above adequately explains Taiwan's diplomatic isolation. Ythlev (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The military difference is obvious.
The PRC has consistently claimed sovereignty over Taiwan and refused diplomatic relations with any country that recognizes the ROC is not at all the same as Most international organizations in which the PRC participates either refuse to grant membership to Taiwan or allow it to participate only as a non-state actor. The former is the reason that the number of states maintaining diplomatic relations has been chipped down to 19 mostly small states. Again, Taiwan's position here is unique, and any summary of the country would mention it. Kanguole10:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Well if you see all that as necessary and inseparable, then they should be in the same paragraph. Ythlev (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, these two sentences belong in the identity paragraph, but there's no need to combine the history and identity paragraphs into one overlong paragraph. Kanguole09:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
If they are closely related, then they should be in the same paragraph. That's what paragraphs are for. There is no rule for how long a paragraph is. Ythlev (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
To me, the second sentence is far too passive and smacks of a CCP propaganda stance that all those international organisations have, without any PRC pressure whatsoever, organically come to a decision to exclude the world's twenty-first largest sovereign economy on purely theoretical, independent and principled grounds. --BushelCandle (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Formosa
Formosa redirects to Geography of Taiwan but for some reason I do not understand the talk page for Formosa is Talk:Taiwan so I am posting a query about Formosa here. I changed the redirect to go to Taiwan, but Matt Smith has twice reverted, saying that Formosa refers to the island and Taiwan to the political entity. This is contradicted by the Taiwan article which refers to the "island of Taiwan" and the geography article, which starts "Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa". The name has also been that of a political entity as Republic of Formosa. The geography article does not cover historical use of the name Formosa, so in my view Formosa should redirect to Taiwan. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
"Formosa" in this case is meant for an island, not for a polity. "Republic of Formosa" did not abbreviated nor commonly known as Formosa.
Regarding terminology, because the Taiwan article is being used for a polity called "Republic of China", it is not a good place to explain the terminology of "Formosa", in my opinion. The Chinese Wikipedia is a lot clearer in this respect because it makes "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" two different articles. On Chinese Wikipedia, you see the Taiwan article explaining the terminology of "Formosa", and that's how it should work, in my opinion. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC
A couple of thoughts: 1) "Formosa" should not be a redirect at all but an disambiguation page which already exists, since it means many things, among which are the names of an Argentine province and it's eponymous capital, plus several entities in Brazil, and 2) English Wikipedia should also separate the "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" articles, because they are NOT the same thing, even though "commonly" refer to same geographic place. The ROC is the polity and Taiwan is either the island or the provincial entity including Penghu. The articles used to be separate but in the early 2010's the contents were merged after extensive discussion, with a separate "Republic of China(1912-1949)" article created. However that shouldn't be because the ROC continued existing didn't end in 1949. Maybe it's time to re-examine this decision and undo it? Mistakefinder (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it should go to a disambiguation. Terms with several different meanings normally go to a disambuation unless there is a dominant usage. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that turning Formosa into a disambiguation article might be best. But I totally disagree with the Taiwan article changing at all. It should not be undone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with turning "Formosa" into a disambiguation page.
As for your objection to redirecting the article, an alternative could be re-writing the first sentence of the lede to something like: "The Republic of China, abbreviated as ROC and is being commonly known as Taiwan, is a state in East Asia." The United States article uses that pattern. By placing the official name of the polity at the beginning, the nature of this article would then be clearer, and that would also make rearranging the contents of this article easier. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I have altered the first paragraph so that it now begins "The Republic of China, abbreviated as ROC and commonly known as Taiwan, is a state in East Asia."
The lead change is unhelpful to readers, as it opens with a less common name that is not the one used throughout the majority of the article. It also has nothing to do with the topic of Formosa. The change to a disambiguation for Formosa is a useful change, considering its application to multiple historical entities. CMD (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough; I've only a mild preference for the alternative phraseology proposed by Matt Smith (and not explicitly opposed by anyone until you reverted my edit just now).
However, are you aware that the infobox is, after your 2 reversions, still headed with "The Republic of China" in a much larger font?
I think that the changed sentence is fully self explanatory and not at all confusing to our readers, any more than saying that "UK" and "Britain" are more commonly used terms for what is officially the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". --BushelCandle (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Country infoboxes are headed with the official name of the country in English and in their official languages. This is also done on United Kingdom, which further introduces the formal name and Britain in the same way this article does. CMD (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Tying discussion topics together in such confusion and deciding to implement a change to the lede as suggested in passing by one person amazes me. I've looked at the United States article and cannot see anything that leads to saying the lede shouldn't make the article's title the prominent leading name. Try getting
America, or the United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US), is ...
accepted as a by-blow of a discussion of Gringo. If you want a yet another discussion of renaming Taiwan/ROC then do it the right way. Click the "New Section" button up top. Shenme (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Look on the bright side: at least "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" are both spelt the same way in all varieties of English...
Hey- the Qing empire told American representatives that they were not responsible for the actions of the aboriginal peoples that killed the crew of the Rover in the Rover incident. An American force attacked the aboriginal people, but was rebuffed. This same issue kind of issue lead the Japanese to carry out their expedition in the area a few years later- no Qing authority over some portion of the aboriginal peoples. Shouldn't we change the cute but naive little graph at the top of the 'Political and legal status' section to reflect the fact that like half the island was outside the control of the Qing? Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello- I have created a new page on English Wikipedia linked to a page on Chinese Wikipedia called 中國方言保護. I would like to invite editors to visit the page and make edits concerning the subject, which I would guess is near and dear to the hearts of people of Taiwan, having seen their native tongues suppressed first by the Japanese and later by the ROC government. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Why does this page refer to Taiwan as a state. It is not governed by any external administration. It is a country right now whatever conversation there might be abouts it's relationship with PRC. Williaminlondon1298 (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
PRC replacing ROC in the major events list in the infobox.
The Republic of China went from being one of the original top 5 members of the UN since its creation, and a permanent member of the UN security council, until it was replaced by the PRC in 1971 in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758. This led the ROC going from that to being an unrecognized country by most of the world and even loosing its place in the UN at all. Despite what a persons personal position on the PRC-ROC dispute is, this UN-switch is an unequivocal FACT and was a major change for the country and has shaped it into what it is today. What "controversy" is there in putting this major event in the countries history in the list of major events, in such neutral and plain terms as "PRC replaced ROC in the UN", with a link to the UN Resolution which passed exactly that? --Havsjö (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Havsjö: The name of the parameter is not "list of major events for the country", it is established_event and the first line of the section is Formation, which leaving the UN has nothing to do with. Also this article is about Taiwan, not the PRC, so it should not be in it. Ythlev (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I would say that event is a big part in establishing the ROC of today, even though it was an event not initiated by the ROC. --Havsjö (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Big how? It was a functioning state before, it still is after. People can still use passports to travel to other countries. Businesses can still trade internationally. How is it significant? Ythlev (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I know it still unofficially recognized by many and continues to function basically normally, but I would say loosing basically all official recognition in the world and its place in the UN, even though it was one of the original top members and perma-member of the security council, is pretty noteworthy. Especially in regards to the establishment of the country as it is today, and the muddled situation of its status. --Havsjö (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Does the average reader even know what the Security Council is and what its permanent members are? Are France and the UK somehow more significant countries than Germany in people's minds? Ythlev (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Its more about its near total loss of official recognition and total expulsion from the UN, made more impact due to its previously very high "rank" in the UN.--Havsjö (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
They werent, for example, a country which had joined the UN last week, but an original top 5 member and perma-member of sec. council. Who after that one resolution, lost that position, its membership of the UN at all, and its much of its international recognition. --Havsjö (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Big impact due to that event = Going from a permanent member of the security council and original top member of UN, the biggest global organisation which includes (basically) every country, to being totally excluded from UN affairs to this day. . --Havsjö (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Why does the UN even exist if being a member (or member of the security council) or not is so insignificant that it doesn't affect anything? --Havsjö (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
You're the one who wants to add it, you tell me. Why don't you also add the year Taiwan joined the WTO, which is also something that "exists", and I can tell you what it affects. Ythlev (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course the 1971 switch from PRC to ROC is a significant event. But it is not an "establishing" event. The Taiwan Relations Act is also very significant, but not an establishing event either. —Kusma (t·c) 12:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
2020 religion data
Per WP:NOCRYSTAL, the religion data about 2020 should be removed, and the data from the 2005 official census should be restored. 2020 has not arrived yet, so it is absurd to have 2020 data in the article. Moreover, the 2020 data are not based on any survey, but rather on a projection of the future. They are part of a plethora of invented data (which have unfortunately infested Wikipedia) that the Pew Research Center has published in recent years.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
It is an estimate based on a 2009 survey.[1] Nowhere in WP:NOCRYSTAL is it mentioned that projected data cannot be used. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. If the 2020 one is inappropriate simply because it is in the future, I'm fine with the 2010 figures. Still better than 2005. Ythlev (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The policy states that: expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place; and: extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Our case is exactly extrapolation, speculation and future history. A projection does not necessarily become reality. You can add the 2010 data, which at least are based on the 2009 survey. However, any Pew Research Center data should be mentioned as secondary data, while the first position should be occupied by the 2005 census. This is because censuses and official data should be given precedence over minor surveys. Also consider that facts should precede opinions.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
You misinterpret the guidelines. Religious composition is not an event, and the figures used are not original research. Presenting them are completely incomparable to creating an article on Weapons to be used in World War III, the example given. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. Also I think both the 2010 and 2020 estimates are based on 2009 data. Ythlev (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I also don't see how WP:FAPO applies here. The captions don't say this is the composition, it says this is the estimated composition. It is a fact that an institution estimated these figures. If the intention is to inform about the current composition, then both are opinions; it is an opinion that the composition hasn't change much over the course of 14 years, which could very well be false. Ythlev (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
They are based on the 2009 survey but they don't represent factual reality. I agree that our case does not represent an "event", but is rather a statistical extrapolation. The policy says that they should not be given undue value, and at the moment the 2020 forecast is the only data presented. The policy allows the creation of articles about events that with certainty will happen in the future (such as the release of a movie or a videogame). In any case, I suggest to ask an opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I have partially reverted this recent change to the lead. In particular, it deleted two sentences from the history summary:
In the early 1960s, Taiwan entered a period of rapid economic growth and industrialization called the "Taiwan Miracle". In the 1980s and early 1990s, the ROC changed from a one-party military dictatorship to a multi-party democracy with a semi-presidential system.
replacing them with the end states. These two transformations are the key features of the history of post-1949 Taiwan, and are covered at length in the article. They would be mentioned in any capsule summary.
The phrase its seat was replaced by the PRC is garbled.
The statement It is a developed nation which ranks 14th globally in GDP per capita is not in the attached references, which support the previous text Taiwan is a high-income country. Kanguole23:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
These two transformations are the key features of the history of post-1949 Taiwan, and are covered at length in the article. They would be mentioned in any capsule summary. No they are not. Every industrialised country and democracy became one at some point. In none of them are they considered "key transformation" and mentioned in the lead. The democratic transformation is fine, but "rapid growth" doesn't mean anything. Was Taiwan's growth the highest in the world? Was it higher than South Korea's ever was? Ythlev (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I reverted two other changes because they are way less clear than 'its seat was replaced by the PRC'. In this way, Taiwan has joined... In what way? Most major states What is a "major state"? Please do not revert my edits and replace them with vague statements. Ythlev (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The economic transformations of Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore were remarkable, and much remarked upon. Any summary of their history would mention them. And similarly for Taiwan's dramatic political transformation.
"rapid economic growth" is appropriate for the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article – precise detail belongs in the article body.
It seems ridiculous to say that you don't know what "major states" are, but presumably do know what "major economies" are, as that's what you replaced it with. But economies don't conduct relations, states do. Kanguole22:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
It is an established usage to refer to a country with a large GDP as a large economy. If you want to be technical, states don't conduct relations either, governments of states do. This distinction is meaningless. On the other hand, I really don't know what a major state is. Is North Korea one? What about India or Singapore? Ythlev (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The economic transformations of Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore were remarkable, and much remarked upon. And yet article leads for Hong Kong and South Korea do not mention it. Encyclopædia Britannica does not mention this in its introduction. This article which goes in some detail about Taiwan's history does not mention it either. Ythlev (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The Britannica lead omits a lot of things. The body of the article does say "Taiwan’s economic growth beginning in the mid-1960s was so spectacular that it acquired the appellation 'economic miracle.'" It also includes the phrases "rapid economic expansion", "rapid industrialization" and "rapid economic growth", which you have been disruptively tag-bombing here.
Okay I did, but what it writes: "Tenant farmers went from 49% of the total in 1949, to 10% in 1960 ... By 1960 industry had once again replaced agriculture as the largest share of GDP." There is some measure of what "rapid" means, as required per MOS:PUFF. Also you still haven't explained what a "major state" is. Ythlev (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I have again restored these two sentences. As noted above, these two transformations are central to the post-1949 history of Taiwan. They are extensively covered in the body of the article, which the lead is intended to summarize. Kanguole22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kanguole: You have just repeated what you said earlier without addressing the point I raised. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.
Another issue is with paragraph structure, which I've raised before and you ignored too. Most country articles have separate paragraphs for history and present facts. The reason is that the present is far more important and many readers don't care about history. If you believe Taiwan's history is absolutely essential to understanding its status, that's fine. But I don't see how breaking at "As a founding member" makes any sense. If there is one sentence to summarise the cause of Taiwan's status, it is the Chinese Civil War, so that's where the paragraph should start. On the other hand, the ROC being a UN founding member has no bearing on its current status. Ythlev (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
We are discussing the lead, where complete detail is neither expected not appropriate. It is not an infobox, where bald facts and figures are enumerated, nor the body of the article, where precise and comprehensive detail is appropriate.
It is necessary for descriptive claims. Look at any FA article like Australia. It doesn't say it's among the least dense without giving the figure. It doesn't say it has a high-income economy without ranking it worldwide. It doesn't call the country a regional power without following it with military expenditure as the measure. Ythlev (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It is normal for country articles to include coverage of history, and for the lead to summarize that coverage (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries). And indeed this article does include significant coverage of history, which should be represented in the lead. Taiwan is unusual in that its political status is a major issue, which is rightly covered extensively in the article, and should be summarized in the lead. It makes sense for the lead to have a paragraph on each of these major topics.
There is overlap between these two aspects, which complicates the structuring of the lead. Your solution is to end the history paragraph at 1945 and bundle everything after 1945 with status. Unfortunately, that leaves no place for other post-1945 history, such as the highly significant economic and political transformations. That is too high a price to pay.
The bit about the UN seat has aspects of both history and status, but I would argue that its implication for status is the more important. I agree that the "founding member" aspect is not vital – the significant part is that the ROC lost its UN seat to the PRC. Perhaps a revision of that sentence would address the issue. Kanguole14:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
As I've said, few if any country articles have economic and political transformations as part of its history. It's like saying the introduction of electricity is significant. Also, there is no rule that paragraphs should be within a certain length. On the other hand, there is a convention in writing that the first sentence of a paragraph should summarise the paragraph, which the current structure does not achieve at all. If the content is inseparable, it is totally acceptable to just have a longer paragraph. Ythlev (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
the significant part is that the ROC lost its UN seat to the PRC Not really. Both Koreas are UN members, but the divide of the peninsula is still highly notable. The simple explanation is the Cold War between two sides with different ideologies. Ythlev (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
No, complete detail is not required, or appropriate, in the lead. To quote MOS:INTRO, Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. You are still complaining about the phrase "rapid economic growth", after I pointed out that it and variants are used repeatedly in the Britannica article you linked to. "rapid" is not a peacock term – it is an adjective, which is accurate in this case, as is clear from the detailed exposition in the linked article Taiwan Miracle and the body of this article.
Few countries have had economic and political transformations as dramatic as Taiwan, but one would not write about England without mentioning the Industrial Revolution, about China without mentioning the post-80s boom, or about Poland without mentioning Solidarity.
It does make sense for paragraphs to have a focus. The first sentence need not summarize a paragraph, but if required we could reinstate the introductory sentence that used to be there: The political status of Taiwan remains uncertain.
The significance of the loss of the UN seat is the impact on Taiwan's international status, and the broad diplomatic squeeze of which is is part.
In that article the rapid growth is not in the introduction. What is required is some measure of how fast is "rapid" for it to be notable, which is not "complete". Why is it okay to include the figure of 23.5 million people or the ranking of GDP? Quantifying "rapid" can be done in the same sentence by ranking its growth rate worldwide or citing a source that does so.
Few countries have had economic and political transformations as dramatic as Taiwan. I certainly can't tell from this article. The body writes it was second fastest growing in Asia. That already sounds pretty unimpressive. It means if we rank worldwide it would be even lower. How did Taiwan's growth compare to all growths in history? How does it compare to Ethiopia's growth today?
Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs. Right. So we need to pick and choose what to include and what to leave out. As I said, the present is more important than the past. Content that I've added include the size of Taiwan, the denseness of its population, its major cities, its major industries and international organisations that it participates in. These are all standard things to write in lead of country articles but weren't written until about last year.
The significance of the loss of the UN seat is the impact on Taiwan's international status. And how did the ROC lose its seat? Countries don't leave the UN for no reason. For the average reader skimming through the article, starting at that paragraph is completely unhelpful to understanding Taiwan's political status. Ythlev (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The location of the phrase is not relevant to the point that it is a perfectly reasonable summary when full detail is given elsewhere. If every adjective is quantified with numerical values, the text will be unreadable.
The present is certainly worth covering, but as noted above, it is also common for country articles and their leads to cover history.
@Kanguole:If every adjective is quantified with numerical values, the text will be unreadable. But they are in other articles as I said and I can read them just fine. common for country articles and their leads to cover history. But not every part of history. The transition to democracy is part of history for every country that is, but it is never mentioned in the lead. Do you have a suggestion for how the issue of Taiwan's status might be summarized? As I said, for a reader with some rough knowledge of world history, the Chinese Civil War is pretty understandable cause of the situation. Ythlev (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
There has long been consensus that the lead is too long. Rephrasing like that basically keeps the same information at half length. Ythlev (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
There was agreement in November 2016 that the lead was too long. At the time it consisted of six paragraphs and was one and a half times as long as now. The present length is reasonable for an article of this size, but if length were a concern, we could remove the recently added sentence Taiwan is a member of the World Trade Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and Asian Development Bank under various names.Kanguole07:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
All country articles have international organisation membership, so I don't see how this is the most sensible thing to remove. Ythlev (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kanguole: Industrialization is part of Taiwan's economic growth, which is what "Taiwan Miracle" refers to. Is it necessary to include all three things when you can just link to the main article on that? Ythlev (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Industrialization and economic growth are of course different things, though they occurred together in this case. The reason for not pipe-linking "rapid economic growth" to the country-specific Taiwan Miracle are given at WP:EGG. It is obvious the reader where a link labelled "Taiwan Miracle" will take them. Kanguole22:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
That article could certainly be improved, but it does provide a lot of detail about the subject. Your view of its notability is getting no traction at the AFD you started, so it seems premature to remove the link here. Kanguole06:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2019
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan" assumes people know what the PRC IS. From the article " The ROC is no longer a member of the UN, having been replaced by the PRC in 1971. Taiwan is claimed by the PRC, which refuses diplomatic relations with countries which recognise the ROC" DEFINE THE PRC "aka Peoples republic of China" IN THE ARTICLE! They were ONLY replaced in respect to China taking their place in being represented in the UN. This article leaves one not knowing the who, what, and where of things. 99.174.225.7 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Languages in the infobox have been changed too often I think this ought to be addressed. I think labelling "Taiwanese X" is unnecessary as the the actual language is X and "Taiwanese" is just the variant. Labelling only the base language is done for Canada, Australia, Austria and Mexico. Ythlev (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request, 16 September 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add the following paragraph to the Sports section, directly under the table tennis paragraph:
Look at the same sections in the other infoboxes for any other country. That's not how the dates are entered. This is about basic consistency between articles. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Well the dates for the US and Canada are inconsistent with other countries. Different countries use different date formats. Why should they be the same? Ythlev (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019
(nac) WP:NOTAFORUM. If you want to rename article title, follow WP:RM process with strong evidence to revert previous consensus . If want to change the lede, it is already done. The lede already read "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia". Matthew hk (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2019 (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.
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
With due respect, the lead sentence in the article states that "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia." I do think that we need consistency between content and editorial judgement. If the article is primarily about the state then there is a case for making the change. On the other hand if the article is primarily about the island then the lead sentence should be corrected. (I have no opinion either way, beyond noting that the rationale for this decision and the lead sentence in the article are inconsistent). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Except we also have common name, and it seems to me (at least in my limited exparianee of the subject) it is usually called Taiwan.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The name is irrelevant to my point. The lead states that the article is about a political state, the above rationale states that the article is about a geographical island. That is an inconsistency which needs sorting out. (The edit request may or may not still be refused in consequence, that is not my concern.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
No, the state is widely known as Taiwan. In fact (apart from this discussion) I cannot ever recall seeing it called the "Republic of China".Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2019 (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.
I'd be interested in noticing this more generally here at Wikipedia. As the article mentions
They continue: "We must develop a targeted external communication strategy, which includes not only rebuilding a set of external communication discourse systems, but also cultivating influential editors on the wiki platform."
"China urgently needs to encourage and train Chinese netizens to become Wikipedia platform opinion leaders and administrators… [who] can adhere to socialist values and form some core editorial teams."
"Today China does owe the world a China story told by itself and from a Chinese perspective. I think it's not only Chinese privilege, it's really a responsibility".
Let's discuss if this is worth adding to the page.
No as China and Taiwan are not the same entity, thus what one does is irrelevant (unless it directly impacts in them) in an article about the other.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
> (unless it directly impacts in them)
Which is what appears to be going on here. I think that it's been covered by the BBC meets the standards for WP:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.66.1 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
No I'm not saying that at all. Please read more carefully. There is a section entitled "Relations with the PRC" so I think if this is worth mentioning that would be the correct section for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.66.1 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
That certainly sounds like the best place for a detailed description of events. But I think this must count as relevant to the China-Taiwan relationship. It is a BBC article about their relationship on Wikipedia. It doesn't stopping being a China-Taiwan thing just because it's also an edit conflict thing. Given that Wikipedia does appear to be blocked in China I wonder who's making the edit war happen. Could be patriotic Chinese expats I suppose. Or tankies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.66.1 (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
It's possible, though difficult, for internet users to bypass the firewall. Most users don't bother. Censorship doesn't have to prevent access totally, it just has to make it not worthwhile enough for the vast majority of users. For the record, I don't think this is notable enough to include on the main page. It could be included on this page: Cross-Strait relations#Public opinion, since there are already other similar examples on there. DrIdiot (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the main article about Taiwan. I still fail to see what Chinese firewalls or censorship has to do with an article about Taiwan. Or are we talking about Taiwanese censorship?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I am also aware of the news. First off, it is quite possible for some Chinese citizens to access wikipedia, whether using VPN, by-passing the censors, being an elite government member (which means unrestricted access), or he/she happens to be overseas. The news is quite notable probably in the list of Wikipedia controversies and here but not probably on the main page, because it does not really give much impact as compared to other news.--00:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
TBH this kind of thing happens all the time (just ask half a dozen large and self-opinionated national government proppaganda education departments). "BBC Click's investigation has found almost 1,600 tendentious edits across 22 politically sensitive articles" -- really, is that all? 22 page protections later and the rest of us have moved on. I think it would need a lot more than one BBC article quoting an unworkable Chinese masterplan, before we could deem this incident notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my opinion is worth something but since I've lived in China quite while I can shed some light on the matter.
1. About 2 years ago, only the zh.wikipedia website was blocked, but since then the entire Wikipedia website is blocked. None of its content is accessible without a VPN.
2. For all intents and purposes, Taiwan is a separate entity just like Hong Kong and Macau (own money, own elected politicians, own laws, own media, own visa regimes). Call it a state or not, it functions like a sovereign country but it just matters how it calls themselves on the world stage. Alexceltare2 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
No, we need VPN to access all WPs. Secondly this report is not neutral as it's quite common for WP in Chinese to conflict with these stuffs, and BBC took this case to label/indicate all editors from mainland China(we only put mainland China,HK,MC,TW together as a rule to avoid conflicts) "controlled by gov" or we are repressing their opinion(there are far more TW editors as CCP blocks WP). We still don't know out how she(in that report) was threatened and whether the threat to HK user is from Chinese users or HKers. To me, nationalists no matter the independist from TW, HK or patriots from mainland are all the same always trying to "correct" some dispute and make Chinese Wikipedia a CN/TW/HK wikipedia. OuiOK (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Taiwan is a separate entity just like Hong Kong and Macau Taiwan has armed forces that defend against attack from the PRC government and hence I would not say that it is "just like" HK and Macau.Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
To me it seems logical to display only the traditional characters in an English language article on Taiwan when Taiwan usually does not use simplified characters. --BushelCandle (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Removing the simplified characters seems to go against the first point of the Guidelines for the article Taiwan at the top of this talk page:
Also, why remove them only from the Infobox-Chinese for the Republic of China, but retain them in the Infobox-Chinese for Taiwan? Phlar (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Phlar: You have asked some good questions. Yes, Simplified Chinese should remain in the infobox if it is used in the area. But the character 华 is never used in Taiwan. What is the rationale for alternate language material on English Wikipedia pages? Alternate language names on English Wikipedia pages need to have been used or currently be in use in the area as the name for the area; they need to be SOURCED. The character 华 has not been endorsed for use by or ever historically used by the 中華民國 government in the context of their national name. This is an English language article about Taiwan, not a Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia article about Taiwan. In the context of the situation of the Mandarin Chinese language group, part of the population uses the simplified characters set forth by Beijing and hence it is appropriate to address the simplified Chinese form for 中華民國 not used in Taiwan on that alternate language Wikipedia page (which they do), but the only reason to have Chinese characters on English Wikipedia at all is to provide readers with information about the name of a place in the language used in the area. To use an example, if an English Wikipedia reader wants to know the form of the name of Ukraine used in Russia, they can go to Wiktionary, a dictionary where you can see the alternate language names of Ukraine in hundreds of languages. If the reader wants to know the various and multiple linguistic forms for 中華民國, they can do the same thing. I don't go to the English Wikipedia page of your town and add German or Russian foreign language forms- I add only the foreign language form directly pertinent to your area that can be sourced to your area. The character 华 is just not used in this context in this area. However, the form 台湾 absolutely IS used in the area by the people in the area. I can walk on the street and take pictures of two or three examples for you. It's a historically-rooted form used in the area. If you can find any example where we include foreign language material on English Wikipedia pages that can't be cited to a local source, then I may be more interested in what you are saying here. Giving people the many and multitudinous alternate forms of the names of areas is the realm of Wiktionary and of the alternate language Wikipedia pages, not of the English Wikipedia page. We are including all the simplified Chinese forms that can be sourced to be used / have ever been used in this area. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)(modified)
@Geographyinitiative: OK, you’ve answered the second question—I now understand your rationale. But what about my first question regarding the consensus guideline on this talk page that specifically supports simplified characters in "linguistic" infoboxes in this article? Phlar (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
It is my understanding that simplified forms are being included to the extent they can be sourced and have ever been historically in use in the area. The character 华 is not sourced as part of the native name for this place used by natives (historically or presently), though it is a Mandarin Chinese form used in other areas and is hence useful to show on Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia and on Wiktionary. I think this is in compliance with the rule stated and the other rules of Wikipedia geography articles. There is no need for "non-native native names" for geography articles of non-English speaking areas- just the "native native names" are needed on the English Wikipedia page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)(modified)
It is my understanding that simplified forms are being included to the extent they can be sourced and have ever been historically in use in the area. What is the basis of your understanding? Can you cite any Wikipedia policies or guidelines that support it? We have a clear guideline that’s been on this talk page for years and says simplified characters belong in the linguistic infoboxes in this specific article, without any caveats about the characters being "in use in the area." Phlar (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I am adhering to the guideline you reference. The form 中华民国 is not found in area dictionaries (http://dict.concised.moe.edu.tw/jbdic/ & http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cbdic/) or historical materials whereas the name used in the area is (http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?o=dcbdic&searchid=Z00000119894 etc). To double-check my work I did an additional search for "华 gov.tw" on Google but I didn't get results. The simplified characters in use/used historically in the area (Examples: Yang Kui's 1936 臺湾新聞學 & [9] both use the form 湾) are being shown on the page. You never use foreign language names that aren't (or historically have never been) used in a given area to describe the native name of that area on English Wikipedia. 华 is just an alien linguistic form- like Vietnamese or Korean. Just because it is a simplified form in China doesn't mean it can be sourced as part of a simplified form used as a native name of this area. Again, no need for "non-native native names"- only the sourced "native native names" are needed on English Wikipedia, otherwise we will need to add all kinds of extraneous foreign language forms to English Wikipedia pages. The Wiktionary dictionary and the Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia has information about numerous alternative linguistic forms for 中華民國. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)(modified)
I realize you may see this as a very fine distinction, but it is an important distinction. To put it another way, I believe I have the form 台湾 written and used by native people for native people in their native language over the course of history in the sources; it is thereby a "native native name" and it is described as a simplified form. Do you have sources by native people for native people (as part of their native language) over the course of history that have 华 in 中華民國? Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
My friend, you are making an argument for something that is just outside the scope of English Wikipedia as it stands. Your implied claims that a form using the character 华 are a native name for the area are wildly unsubstantiated as far as I can tell. The role of the English-Chinese part of Wiktionary (linked on this page) and Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia (also linked on this page) in providing dictionary-like resources for the readers who want to learn more about Mandarin Chinese is not discussed in that discussion you linked above. The purpose of incorporating foreign language material on this English language page is to give readers information about native names, but notice how you're not trying to present information that will confirm 华 is used in this term (中華民國) in communication between people who use this term regarding their native territory. If you could do that, you would, but you aren't doing it. That's the core and heart of the problem. Why can't you just go ahead and show me that 华 is part of a form of the native name for this area- the evidence, the source? The "non-native native names" you are trying to add are just not within the scope of foreign language material incorporated into English Wikipedia's articles. Once you have some good evidence to substantiate your claim that a form incorporating 华 is a native name for this area, then you can add that form 'til your heart's content. Having failed to demonstrate your claim that 华 is used in the native name for this area, adding a form that incorporates that character is misleading to the readers, leading them to the erroneous conclusion that 中华民国 is a native name for the area, which it is not proven to be. Territories, persons and concepts that have used or use traditional or simplified characters in some sense of course would need to incorporate those Chinese characters. But adding foreign language material that has not been used between natives in the area for communication between natives- or by any occupying force historically even- is just adding extraneous material, in a word- silly. "To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle." Thanks for your time here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Note: it is justified to provide traditional Chinese characters on all PRC related topics on the same basis I made this edit [11] which is that the PRC is still using traditional characters in some contexts (see [12] and all PRC published dictionaries). PRC official policy is not the same as it may be understood by some and you have to pay attention to these things. There is no dictionary in China that doesn't have traditional characters. Not one. Also, all the old maps in Wikimedia Commons have traditional and alternate character forms. As for other areas like Singapore, there are probably analogous documents and situations which demonstrate that the traditional characters are obviously a part of the native language, 100%. What I'm looking for is any kind of analogous situation vis-a-vis Taiwan, Taiwanese Mandarin and other languages in Taiwan. I need proof that 华 is a part of the language and culture in the area, otherwise what you are doing is about adding alternate language "non-native native names" to the Taiwan page, which in fact means adding alternate language non-native names to the page and giving the form including 华 a legitimacy as a "native name" that you actually need to demonstrate rather than assert without warrant. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
"Your implied claims... ...assert without warrant..." What are you talking about? I have claimed no such thing and asserted no such thing. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Let me spell my assertions out to you:
The guidelines at the top of Talk:Taiwan (this page) describe a consensus agreement / convention that "Simplified Chinese shall remain in the linguistics infobox."
You have removed Simplified Chinese from said infobox.
You have failed to cite another WP guideline or consensus to justify this removal.
Your removal of the Simplified violates the guidelines for this article, and therefore you should revert it.
I have said nothing about the merits of your theory that Simplified characters should only be included in the infobox if they are used in the locale in question, because the theory has no bearing on my argument, since your attempt to achieve consensus around this theory failed. So please don't try to debate your theory with me---I am not interested. Phlar (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
You are correct that the guidelines say what they say. From my perspective, an inappropriately added simplified form has been appropriately removed from the infobox and you have yet to provide a justification for adding that simplified form here. Only actual native names and native language terms need to appear in the infobox, as is standard procedure with all English Wikipedia pages, otherwise you give the false impression that a foreign language term added to the page represents a local term for an area. You're trying to convince me to add a non-native foreign language form to an English language page. Non-native terminology does need to be added here- all the simplified character forms used to describe this area by the native inhabitants are being displayed on the page. 华 is not yet proven to be part of the alleged native name term you want added here, and I await the proof you need to present. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I can make other similar comments to the above, but basically there is no way this timeline can work in the way it's set up now. It's grossly simplified and 100% ignores indigenous peoples, which is just dumb. I think a better timeline could be made, but it should reflect a more nuanced understanding of things. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Argument from age of the section ("2.5 year old") does not equate to argument for the validity of the claims made in the section. There's no source on Earth that can actually back up the ludicrous claims implied by this timeline. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
More proof that the above timeline should be revised: look at "File:Seconde partie de la carte d'Asie contenant la Chine et partie de la Tartarie (Senkaku).jpg" - the eastern coast of Taiwan is a different color from the western coast in this 1752 map. Perhaps the whole island wasn't recognized to be under Qing rule? It is incredible to me that I am the one that is pointing out these problems, so I have to take pause and think twice, but I keep coming up with the same answer: the above timeline is not reflective of the factual history. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2019
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding [5]. The thread is Possible shared account/paid editing?. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.svg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Taiwan_Mobile.svg){kind=link}