Talk:Taiwan/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

The lack of reliable sources for "state"

@Fyunck(click): In your edits such as this one, you removed template {{Citation needed}} without citing reliable sources and with only mentioning editors' consensus. Please explain which policy allows editors' consensus to go beyond core content policies WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This is pointless wikilawyering. I agree that the BBC source is far from ideal to be used, but if I was to explain this (I am uninterested in getting involved), in a country profile (note: not "island profile", this alone covers "governing polity". I suppose you need to examine the source closer and read the context: when this article says "Taiwan is an island", it is describing the geographical entity, and immediately moves on to describe the political entity that is in Taiwan, and internationally known as Taiwan) section with the description of all practical purposes been independent since 1950 (sovereignty). For the sake of clarify however, I have added one additional academic source ([1]) that explicitly states Moreover, its status as a vibrant democratic state has earned it huge international sympathy and a generally positive image. Alex Shih (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added an authoritatively academic source ([2]) that explicitly holds the opposite view: "The conclusion must be that Taiwan is not a State because it still has not unequivocally asserted its separation from China and is not recognized as a State distinct from China." --Matt Smith (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Matt Smith, there is a reason why Crawford capitalized his usage of "State" (not "state") in his conclusion back in 2006. The political status of Taiwan is a "special case", as he noted. This particular book is discussing criteria of "Statehood" in the strict sense of international law. It's borderline tendentious to use this an example (because this page is not the venue for discussion over Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan) to relitigate a long term consensus derived from commonly agreed compromise that was established from multiple thorough discussions since probably 2006, especially when you are using a source from that time period during which all of these past discussions have taken place. This is exactly why there is a notice at the top of this page noting "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated.". Please search the archives for past discussions about this topic again: ([3]). In short summary, one of the alternatives is to describe Taiwan in this page as "island country" per the Oxford dictionary, but that's only going to spark even more recycled debates. In the meanwhile, I will leave this thread open for other editors to join. Alex Shih (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I respect your interpretation of that source, I don't agree with you though. And I think Crawford had made his opposite view clear enough anyway. Please also be advised that Crawford's source is not the only source that holds the opposite view; there are more sources that say Taiwan is not a state, for example: "The population on the islands of Formosa and the Pescadores is governed by an effective government to the exclusion of others, but Taiwan is not generally considered a state."[4] --Matt Smith (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And I would also like to quote an important paragraph from core content policy WP:Neutral point of view: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." --Matt Smith (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Precisely, so actively trying to promote one contested point of view is strictly not allowed (relating to WP:UNDUE). Seek consensus with other editors here to discuss how the content can be best represented. I won't be commenting further for now. Alex Shih (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. But "state" is exactly one contested point of view, according to reliable sources we can see. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And @Matt Smith:, you aren't just coming into this blind as a first timer as I see you were in the conversations in the archives. This article did say "Sovereign State" and we looked for the best compromise in wording to not take sides. We had discussed also using just country, country with a link, state with a link, partially recognized state or country, etc. All of which is in the archives. Many of the controversial sources are using the term "State" to mean sovereign state instead of the dictionary term of state of country which can mean sovereign or not. Taiwan meets that protocol. It was tried to find something that was neutral, fit a definition, and wouldn't be changed every other day, which worked until now. And since you are listed in those archives, and I assume read the past archives, you should know that. "State" seemed to be our best compromise on the first sentence and it will take a heap of convincing from you here to change that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I carefully based my decisions and suggestions on reliable sources and policies. I believe I'm not misunderstanding any policy. Would you help confirm that? --Matt Smith (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Wikipedia policies, but everything to do with longstanding discussion/compromising derived consensus. Which you already know. Some may want to go back to "sovereign state" which sources could be found for also. Then we go round and round for umpteen weeks and wind up back at unlinked country or state. Since that seems counterproductive to me, I try to head those things off. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Wikipedia does not work like that. Surely editor consensus is important, but it is explicitly not allowed to supersede WP:NPOV. When the opinions of reliable sources differ on a topic, Wikipedia's content cannot state a stance on that topic and can only narrate that topic in a neutral way. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you said "strictly speaking" because generally speaking that is exactly the way Wikipedia does work, or at least it has for the last 12 years. I have see the number of sources thrown out heaps of times by consensus. And State is pretty neutral when we have sources on either end of the spectrum. By definition, Taiwan is a state. Be sourcing you could find that Taiwan is a sovereign state, a state, a partially recognized state, a country, etc... Those things should and I believe are encompassed in the body of the article, while we leave the term "state" by consensus in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Or it could mean that you are not strictly following policy WP:NPOV, which explicitly prohibits editor consensus to go beyond WP:NPOV. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Matt Smith, I’ve had a look at the sources you refer to and agree with Fyunck(click) and Alex Shih – the writers questioning Taiwan’s statehood are doing so from the point of view of it being a sovereign state. But that is a particular usage, used to make a particular point. It does not agree with the general meaning of state, which is the appropriate one here. Taiwan is not a considered sovereign state, like most countries, which is explained later in the lead and article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with your approach that tries to exclude Crawford's source by labeling it as a particular usage, I did also cite a different source above, which clearly is not a particular usage. And here is one more: "Three traditional flashpoints remain focal points for assessing threats to regional, Asian, and international security in the early 21st century. These are North Korea, Taiwan, and Pakistan. Each of these actors (since Taiwan is not considered a state) has the potential to cause enormous regional disruption, …"[5] --Matt Smith (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Read on. Later in the same article the author writes Pakistan, Afghanistan. Iraq, Taiwan, North Korea and Iran are all states which may deliberately instigate or become embroiled in internal, regional, or great power conflict in the coming decades., and then this usage continues to the end of the article. After once calling Taiwan a quasi-state to make an unclear point his usage matches that in this article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's still fine. So the author firstly mentions others' views that Taiwan is not a state, and then he expresses his view that Taiwan is a state. That's a good example of differed opinions on whether Taiwan is a state or not.

Here is yet another source: "Take the example of Taiwan – it is contested whether Taiwan can, in fact, be regarded as a state, but as a de facto regime it enjoys protection under Article 2 (4) UN Charter against any violations of its borders from the outside."[6] --Matt Smith (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You will always find some sources disagreeing with common sources. At nationsonline.org you will find Taiwan called a Sovereign State, Sovereign Nation, Country, and State. CIA Factbook lists it as a country (which is identical to state). BBC News lists it under country. Taiwan gov't recently told China it's dreaming if it doesn't think Taiwan is a Sovereign Country. Of course all these types of things have been brought up before in the archives. And you can find a few individuals who'll claim otherwise or call it part of mainland China. This was taken into account in past discussions. It was Sovereign State for awhile but it seemed to most editors that there were enough anti-Sovereign State sources to make a change to the lead. The overwhelming majority of sources have a common denominator of Taiwan being at least a definition of country/state. Anything more or less should be described and sourced in the main article body. That has stood pretty well for awhile now, as you know, and I see no reason to change it from what has been written here. I really have nothing else to add to this as it's all been said before in archives, so I'll keep an eye on this topic but probably remain mute. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please think twice before asserting the sources you mentioned are common sources. Don't forget that there is a huge amount of sources that regard Taiwan as "Taiwan, Province of China" or "Taiwan, China". Although I personally don't agree with the two viewpoints, I think the amount of the two viewpoints alone are enough to contest the viewpoint of "state". --Matt Smith (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: What word or phrase would you be prepared to accept instead of "state" in the opening sentence? Kanguole 10:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, it could be "political entity", as explicitly mentioned in this source: "It is time to consider and seriously discuss the international status of Taiwan as a political entity." --Matt Smith (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Political entity, i.e. polity though is far too broad. It applies not just to states and countries but to everything from transnational bodies to a local councils. Both ways of writing it have the additional disadvantage of being relatively obscure. "Polity" more so, but even "political entity", which is more an academic term than a general one. But "state" is widely known and understood. People do dispute the status of Taiwan. But the dispute is about what sort of state it is. Whether it is a sovereign state, a dependent state or an unrecognised state for example. But all of those are sorts of states. All fit within the commonly recognised definition of state. The sources you have found, that in one way or another question whether Taiwan is a state, are using a different, non-standard definition of "state".--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker after all so I'm unable to verify the nature or concept of "state" by myself. But the sources I have cited do not argue whether Taiwan is a sovereign/dependent/unrecognized state; they simply say Taiwan is not considered/regarded as a state. How could you conclude that they are using a different, non-standard definition of "state"? --Matt Smith (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

As state covers all the various ways you could describe Taiwan. sovereign state, a dependent state, unrecognised state. You could discuss it in terms of whether it is a de facto or de jure state. Or you could simply look at the article which is in a number of categories identifying it as a state – those for Former member states of the United Nations, States and territories established in 1912, States and territories established in 1945 and Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states – as well as some that identify it as a country, the categories for Chinese-speaking countries and territories, Island countries and Northeast Asian countries.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If that's true, I won't persist. But do you think it would make readers' lives easier by adding a note ({{efn}}) after the word "state" that explains "state" does not imply statehood ... etc? --Matt Smith (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: If you say you can't verify the nature or concept of "state" then I don't think you are in a position to make this NPOV claim. Americans call California a state and Brits call Scotland a country. These are just words and can mean anything depending on the context. Just because some people don't use a word a certain way doesn't mean others can't. Not to mention the sentence after the next says Taiwan is non-UN, which already gives away its controversial nature. Szqecs (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course I am, as long as my claim is based on reliable sources. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well if you really want to play the word game, none of the sources you cited actually say Taiwan is not a state. They say "not considered a state", "it is contested whether Taiwan can, in fact, be regarded as a state", "The conclusion must be that Taiwan is not a State". They only point out the controversial nature and do not explain in depth what should be considered states and what should not. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, they do not support whatever you are proposing. Szqecs (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in that kind of game. Although I'm planning to accept what JohnBlackburne said and stop persisting, the sources I cited do show the opposite viewpoints and that tells us it's controversial to describe Taiwan as a state. Thus I think you are misunderstanding something. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it's controversial to describe Taiwan as a state, it's also controversial to say the earth is round. If a source simply says that the earth is not considered round by flat-earthers and doesn't provide scientific evidence to support it, are we not supposed to describe the earth as round? Unlike the word "round", the word "state" have several meanings and the sources you cited do not distinguish between them. Szqecs (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the example of earth is not an appropriate one so I would not discuss it. But I don't think reliable sources have to talk about the several meanings of "state" and distinguish between them; otherwise the reliable sources that say Taiwan is a state cannot be used, neither, because they don't talk about the several meanings of "state" and distinguish between them, too. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

On the matter of language, where e.g. there is debate over the meaning of a word, then the place to cover that is the article on that word or concept, i.e. state (polity). That article goes into great depth over what a state is and the different types of states. In other cases we just use the word as it is commonly used. It makes no sense for every article that uses a common word to go into such detail, or where would it end, with every word needing footnotes or clarifying phrases?

There is a meaningful dispute over Taiwan. But the dispute is over what sort of state it is. Whether it is a sovereign state, a state with limited recognition, an unrecognised state. All of those, in English, are types of states, are ways of classifying states. They include 'state' in their names to make this clear, and there are many more examples of such.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I see. Then I think it makes sense to link "state" to state (polity). How do you think? --Matt Smith (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I just looked up three authoritative English dictionaries, and I couldn't verify what you said before. The dictionaries I looked up are listed below. They don't say that a state can be a sovereign state, a dependent state, or an unrecognized state. According to what they say, it seems to me that "state" is commonly used to refer to sovereign state/country. Could you explain?

• https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/state
• https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/state
• https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/state

--Matt Smith (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

picking the first which is clearest it says "A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.", That does not say sovereign state. It describes Taiwan, which is a territory (the island of Taiwan) organised under one government. That is the definition of a state. Particular sorts of state, such as sovereign and dependent, will have their own definition.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. How would you think the idea of linking "state" to state (polity)? --Matt Smith (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I would support that. Normally linking a common word is unnecessary, but here it will help clarify and hopefully help reduce the chance of editors arguing over it in future. I would wait for other editors to comment before doing anything though, I understand this might have been discussed before and there might be objections I have not thought of.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, state is fine with me. Alex Shih (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Country

How about country instead of state? "Country" is the more common term and Taiwan fits the category as defined in the article: A country is a region that is identified as a distinct national entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics. Phlar (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I personally think it's not the moment yet for changing the word. Country#Sovereignty_status says: "The term "country" is frequently used to refer to sovereign states." --Matt Smith (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"Country" is to me both more ambiguous and more loaded. I mean country is used for things that are not states, such as Scotland and Wales. It is also used more often for political effect. "my country right or wrong", that sort of thing. State is more precise and neutral. There’s not much difference between them, and they can largely be used interchangeably, but state is better here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Both "state" and "country" have a range of meanings, but "state" includes the international relations meaning that Matt Smitt is concerned about. I notice that Iceland, Madgascar, Sri Lanka and Jamaica all have "island country", which seems helpfully descriptive. (Yes, Taiwan is a little more than one island, but so are they.) Kanguole 13:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Since Taiwan’s de facto territory consists entirely of islands, "island country" or "country of islands" seems apt. Phlar (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The island countries you mentioned (Iceland, ... etc) don't have problems of territorial dispute, while Taiwan does. Therefore I really don't suggest describing Taiwan as "island country" blatantly on Wikipedia. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

As I noted above, "country" avoids the problem with "state", which also has several meanings, but includes among them a technical term in international law. That is why there are sources saying that Taiwan is not a state, according to one particular definition. That issue does not arise with "country". It is also easy to verify that "island country" is a common descriptor for Taiwan. Kanguole 10:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I respect your point of view. But Wikipedia's contents have to be based on reliable sources. There are reliable sources saying Taiwan is not recognized as a country. Therefore we have to use a neutral narration to address this issue. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Which sources would you consider the best examples of this? Kanguole 12:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't tried to find all those sources and pick up the best one, but here is one of them: "In Taiwan, heritage organizations must work with the fact that Taiwan is not recognized as a country by international agencies …"[7] --Matt Smith (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

A passing mention in a book on another subject. That's the problem with relying on search engines. A source that was focussed on the subject (international law) would use "state" rather than "country". Kanguole 13:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Be it a passing mention or not, it does indicate that there are a significant amount of the said view. If you want sources that focus on international law, I had already cited one before. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Which was that? Kanguole 13:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We are not talking about "state" now so I think that does not matter. But in case you missed it, it is here. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right: that source is not relevant to "country". Kanguole 13:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So why did you mention sources that focus on international law and use "state"? --Matt Smith (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The point I started with above is that "state" has a range of meanings, including as a technical term in international law. Sources focussing on formal independence and diplomatic recognition will therefore use "state". The term "country" does not have this problem. Kanguole 14:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

But it has this problem: It is frequently used to refer to sovereign states. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to the first sentence in Country#Sovereignty status, that simply acknowledges the fact that any sovereign state can be called a country. It’s like saying that sedans are often called cars. Phlar (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the meaning of the sentence. According to what the sentence says (The term "country" is frequently used to refer to sovereign states.), if you use "country" to describe Taiwan, readers would very likely think that Taiwan is a sovereign state. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That sentence is unsourced. Show me a source to support your claim that most readers take "country" to mean "sovereign state.” Phlar (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not my claim; it's that sentence's claim. I had just added {{Citation needed}} after the sentence. Still, according to a source I cited above, it's a fact that Taiwan is not recognized as a country by international agencies. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the ambiguity from the sentence in the Country article. Regarding the source you cited above, as Kanguole already point out, that is a passing mention in a book that does not focus on the subject. The author does not claim any expertise on sovereignty issues, he just mentions that Taiwan's heritage organizations don't have access to international funding due to recognition issues. Therefore, whether Taiwan is not recognized as a "country," as a "state" or as a "sovereign state" is immaterial to the point this author was making. But in this discussion, we are trying to decide which term to use for Taiwan in the first sentence of the article, therefore we need sources that profess some level of expertise specifically in Taiwan's recognition. Kanguole made the claim that any such source would use the terms "state" instead of "country;" you disagreed with this claim and stated that "there are reliable sources saying Taiwan is not recognized as a country." You have yet to cite any expert sources that specifically state that Taiwan is not a "country." Phlar (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you cite a expert source that specifically states that Taiwan is a "country"? --Matt Smith (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Goodness, I edit it once, and it starts a 1000 word thread! I think that the term polity is the best for this page, drawing on precedent set by our terming for Kosovo, the Donetsk People's Republic and other de-facto states that either have not gained, or have in the meantime lost international recognition as sovereign states. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"polity" is an obscure term, and doesn't seem to be used on those pages either (not that the Donetsk People's Republic is in any sense an example for Taiwan). Kanguole 22:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the example of Kosovo you gave because it uses "partially recognised" and helps readers understand the issue easier. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The average reader doesn't even care about the issue. Szqecs (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No matter they care or not, the information can be helpful to them knowledge-wise. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: Stop trying to impose your belief on others and try to change the lead when we've discussed this time and time again and no one supports you. The word 'state' is about as neutral of a word as you can find. Please go find something better to do. Szqecs (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Read the discussion carefully before leaving a comment. I already accepted JohnBlackburne's explanation and the use of "state". But then Phlar proposd changing the word to "country" so we are now discussing "country" instead. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: Really? I personally think it's not the moment yet for changing the word. Country#Sovereignty_status says: "The term "country" is frequently used to refer to sovereign states."--Matt Smith. if you use "country" to describe Taiwan, readers would very likely think that Taiwan is a sovereign state. --Matt Smith. Could you cite a expert source that specifically states that Taiwan is a "country"? --Matt Smith. I don't think you accepted anything. 'Country' and 'state' are kind of interchangeable words and Phlar is fine with any. I think you ought to read more carefully. If you accept 'state' then we are done here aren't we? You can remove the neutrality tag now? Szqecs (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As you quoted, we are discussing "country" and not "state". No one is forcing you to join the discussion, but please be respectful if you don't like to participate. As for the template, feel free to remove it. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Matt, I don’t think anybody particularly wanted to participate. You triggered the discussion by tagging the term as disputed. All we did was rehash the same old same old. I’m glad it’s over. Phlar (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe "want" is not the right word. Anyway, I had no intention to imply that you guys are eager to participate in these topics. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There doesn’t seem to be much enthusiasm for "country." I’m fine with any of these broad labels: state, polity, political entity. What I don’t want to see in the first sentence is a string of modifiers before the label, such as "partially recognized state" or "de-facto independent state," etc. The subtleties of the situation are better addressed (as they already are) in the third and subsequent sentences of the lead, and elsewhere in the article, not in the introductory sentence, which should be short and easy to read. Phlar (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Of those three state is the only one that makes sense. Both polity and political entity are relatively obscure academic terms, and include all sorts of things that aren’t states, such as local councils. State is more precise and a much more commonly understood term. As I’ve noted already country and state are pretty interchangeable, but of the two state is more neutral and precise, as many things are countries that aren’t states.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Knowledge-wise, I think adding a modifier can be helpful to readers. Take Kosovo for example, the modifier helps readers understand the controversial nature of the state immediately, and it does not look lengthy at all. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"State" is fine, and I'm for adding a link to State (polity) in the (unrealistic?) hope that it might forestall some of the efforts to challenge the first sentence, which have recurred nearly bi-monthly since 2016 when we last settled on "state" with no link. Phlar (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Knowledge-wise, I think it's much more important for the average reader to understand that "Taiwan" is not "Thailand" than to be bothered with the political status, in which the average reader has no interest at all. At least the second sentence helps to place Taiwan in its geographic context. That said, I'm not categorically opposed to adding a modifier in front of "state," I'd just like to keep it simple. Phlar (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional streamlined provinces

Though Taiwan and Fujian are still under ROC control, I think the ROC still has one more province which they held on some parts of Guangdong after 1949 consisting of Pratas and Taiping Islands respectively but administered in Kaioshung. Therefore, there are three ROC provinces: Taiwan (including Pescadores), Fujian (Quemoy/Lienchang) and Guangdong (Pratas/Taiping). Any thoughts? -- 135.23.145.14 (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you cite a source regarding "Guangdong (Pratas)"? --Matt Smith (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Here they are:

• Pratas: Sovereignty over the Spratly Islands
• Taiping: Spratly Islands. Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2008. Archived from the original on 2009-11-01. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

The islands are still part of the ROC's Guangdong Province, which this article needs to be created: Guangdong Province, Republic of China. -- 135.23.145.14 (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. However, the first source is a commentary, which unfortunately isn't a good source in this case, as WP:NEWSORG says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." As for the second source, it does not say Pratas is part of Guangdong. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the map below, Pratas/Taiping are miles from Guangdong, which they administered it since 1946. You may have to contact the ROC's Ministry of Interior by email to discuss this issue. 135.23.145.14 (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Map showing the ROC and PRC claims.

Please contact them if you wish to confirm that. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2018

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

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED, WP:SNOW Red Slash 15:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Taiwan → Taiwan (country) – This makes it easier to prevent the mistake of thinking that the article is about the island. Georgia guy (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

According to a recent discussion, it was decided that we don't use "country" for now. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the outcome of the recent discussion cited above, there’s no way this proposal is going to pass. I suggest closing it per WP:SNOW. Phlar (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it proper to change the title to Republic of China (Taiwan)? The word “Taiwan” is the name of the island which may be confusing while the word “Republic of China” means a government which de jure rules China but de facto rules the island called Taiwan. If this article is about the government rather than the island, then Republic of China (Taiwan) may be a good title ——- PE fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE fans (talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

By defining "de jure" ruling the whole China, this means the ROC still rules but claims the following territories and provinces such as Fukien, Kiangsu, Anhui, Kwangtung, Szechuan, Sinkiang, Hubei, and the others? --108.162.177.213 (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCRN and previous discussions. Szqecs (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous discussions. Long-standing title works well. I would also oppose changing it to Republic of China (Taiwan) Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• oppose Taiwan is the common name on its own, the primary topic for "Taiwan", so disambiguating it is entirely pointless. Many island states have a name shared with their island home, but when people use the name they are almost always referring to the country.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Unlike with the Ireland/Macedonia situations, the primary topic is the sovereign state - and calling Taiwan a country is dubious because of the PRC's claims. ONR (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – the primary topic of Taiwan is the sovereign entity governed by the Republic of China (ROC). CookieMonster755✉ 01:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the community put a lot of effort in deciding the current name. Nothing has changed since the last rename so it should jsut stay the same as it is now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I’ve read WP:LISTEN. Since it has been a long discussion to use the current title. It's time to move on to improve the article to be consistent with the current title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE fans (talk • contribs) 14:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Request to change the west of Taiwan into “Mainland China”

We’ve seen that it has been a long discussion to agree that the title should be “Taiwan”. However, this fact leads to an inaccuracy in the second sentence. The main problem is that the de facto territory of Republic of China is usually called “Taiwan” while the de facto territory of People’s Republic of China is usually called “Mainland China”. Therefore, expressions like “the relationship between ROC government and PRC government” or the “Taiwan-Mainland China relationship” is more natural then “Taiwan-PRC relationship” or “China-ROC relationship”. If we decide to use “Taiwan” as the title, then it’s more natural to use the “Mainland China” in the second sentence. As a Wikipedia editor, I’d like to provide evidence to show that it is more proper to use “Mainland China”

(1) The ROC government use the word “Mainland China” to describe their west government.

(2) The word of “Mainland China” is also used by newspaper in Beijing.—PE fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE fans (talk • contribs) 01:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

References

@PE fans: I think there is a point here, given the present lede on Kinmen opens with "Kinmen, ... , governed by the Republic of China (ROC), which is located just off the southeastern coast of mainland China" and does not mention the PRC until the last sentence ("...the People's Republic of China (PRC) has continuously claimed Kinmen..."). CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I think there is one thing wrong with the premise. While the de facto territory of Republic of China is usually called "Taiwan", the de facto territory of People’s Republic of China is usually called simply "China." Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. This "mainland China" should be changed to "China". --Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The definition of Mainland China is the following: Mainland China, also known as the Chinese mainland, is the geopolitical as well as geographical area under the direct jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China (PRC). It includes Hainan island and strictly speaking, politically, does not include the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, even though both are partially on the geographic mainland (continental landmass). The key point is that whether Taiwan is part of PRC is controversial. For example UN thinks Taiwan as part of PRC. Thus, the second sentence which says that Taiwan is east “to” PRC rather than “in” PRC would contain a politic point which is as I think not proper for wikipedia. The word “Mainland China” is more neutral because as I cited, was used by both of the two governments of China. The statement that the de facto territory of ROC is east to the de facto territory of PRC is 100% correct by avoiding choosing the either side of the two government——PE fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE fans (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, what Fyunck(click) said. This is the English Wikipedia, and the de facto territory of People's Republic of China that are commonly known to the West is just, China. But that's irrelevant to what is being discussed here. "Mainland China" is a constructed term for the purpose of differentiating political and geographical discourse, and it should only be used in certain contexts, such as in Cross-Strait relations or in the example above, when describing in geographical or territorial terms. The sentence in question here is not talking about "territories"; it is describing "neighboring states, not "neighboring territories" (bolded for emphasis), so it's inappropriate/misinformed to use Mainland China here. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that “Mainland China” is mostly used to describe Cross-Strait relations. However, any sentence related to both Taiwan/ROC and mainland China/PRC is exactly the situation of describing the Cross-Strait relations. By the way what do you mean by “West”? Do you mean the United Nation, the US government, UK government, Australian government, India government or other countries speaking English? ——PE fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE fans (talk • contribs) 03:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Taiwan" in this article refers to a political entity rather than a geographical entity. So your example of "Taiwan/ROC and mainland China/PRC" is not appropriate. If you want to compare geographical entities, your example should be "Taiwan (island)/ROC and mainland China/PRC"; if you want to compare political entities, your example should be "Taiwan/ROC and China/PRC". By the way, I personally don't like to use "Taiwan" to refer to the ROC because that's confusing. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It does? That's like say Scotland refers to the government of Scotland rather than the geography it occupies. Taiwan here encompasses the whole enchilada. When comparing geography, it's true we would often say the geography of the island of Taiwan, but we would also say the geography of China... not the geography of mainland China. The only time "mainland China" would get used would be in the same context as the continental United States. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It does, as the firs sentence says "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state......" The Republic of China is a state (polity). --Matt Smith (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Not in the least. Yes, that's what the lead says, but this article tells us of the climate, the geography, the geology, the transportation, the demographics, religion, etc.. It is much much more than just the political entity. It is everything Taiwan including the island and the state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Those are supplementary information. The main topic is a polity. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah because it says supplementary in every one of those multitudinous sections. What a crock... done feeding the troll here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please follow WP:Civility and WP:Etiquette. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure whether you’ve notice the definition of Mainland China: Mainland China, also known as the Chinese mainland, is the GEOPOLITICAL as well as geographical area under the direct jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China.

I’d like to ask you a question, do you think the leading sequence of Wikipedia should include politic opinions? If yes, then we should use the opinion of most western governments which say that Taiwan is part of PRC. If you think Wikipedia should stay neutral and independent of any government, then we should avoid claiming that Taiwan is part of PRC or is not part of PRC and use the neutral statement that Taiwan is not under the direct jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China, or equivalently Taiwan (state) is not part of Mainland China (geopolitical). I’m not sure whether the “Mainland China” is a good choice because sometimes Mainland China means a geographical region. However, currently I can not find better terminology to describe the geopolitical regiom under the direct jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China avoiding stating seriously contested assertions as facts which was required in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.PE fans (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia should present facts. The facts are that Beijing has no control over Taiwan. Therefore, Taiwan is not part of China. It was previously part of China, it could conceivably be part of China again at some later point, Beijing may wish it were part of China now. But it isn't. --Khajidha (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Although I personally do not regard Taiwan (island) as part of China, I would like to point out that "Taiwan is not part of China" is a POV, not a fact. Just because a regime is not controlling a territory does not necessarily mean it has no sovereignty over that territory; just because a regime is controlling a territory does not necessarily mean it has sovereignty over that territory. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't control it, it ain't yours. Sovereignty IS control. --Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What if a UK citizen buy a house in US and control it? Does it mean that UK has sovereignty over it? I think the sovereignty is not decided by whether you control it, but what the government thinks in diplomatic level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE fans (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A UK citizen is not the UK. The "you" in the above statements from me is standing in for the states, not the people. I thought that would be obvious, considering that we are discussing countries. In your example, the UK cannot exercise control and is not sovereign over the house. --Khajidha (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No. That's not exactly how territorial sovereignty works. For example, if there is already a legal owner, effective control by other states does not grant those states sovereignty. Another example is military occupation, which does not grant the occupant territorial sovereignty, no matter how long the occupant controls the territory. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A legal owner who cannot enforce that claim of ownership isn't the owner. By military occupation do you mean something that outsiders call that or that the occupying power calls that? The first is irrelevant and the second is voluntary. If outsiders consider it a "military occupation" but do nothing to remove said occupation, then they have tacitly consented to the assumption of sovereignty. "Sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity." Legality and "legitimacy" are illusions, the authority is simply power. If you have power over an area, you have sovereignty over that area unless you voluntarily refuse it or are forced out of it. --Khajidha (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The two examples I gave are taken from sources of international law. International law defines how territorial sovereignty works. A Wikipedia editor is not international law. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And I'm sure that international law was a great comfort to all those Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians who lived between 1940 and 1991. They weren't really under Soviet sovereignty, they were actually still independent states. And I bet you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, too. --Khajidha (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Joking around at the wrong time doesn't make one more professional. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to refer to a geographical entity, "Mainland China" sounds neutral to me. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Khajidha As a Wikipedia editors, I’d like to provide a reference :::::::::The reference says that “Taiwan is part of China”. I don’t whether you believe in that the US government always represent most people in US. However, it is definitely true that the US government at least represent the opinion of a large portion of people in US. Thus even though it is a fact that Taiwan is not part of Mainland China, i.e. the area under the direct jurisdiction of the PRC, it is an opinion to say whether Taiwan is part of PRC. PE fans (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

References

I would like to point out that that interpretation is a misunderstanding. In that joint communiqué, the US merely "acknowledges" the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China, and does not "recognize" that position. In other words, the US "heard" the Chinese position but did not "agree" with it. The US officials had already clarified that. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that diplomatic texts represent actual facts. There's too much pussyfooting around. That document is just the USA blowing smoke up the PRC's ass so that they don't get all pissy and actually attack Taiwan. And see my response to Matt Smith about control and sovereignty. --Khajidha (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

To reduce misunderstandings, I’d like to define the terminology before discussion. “Taiwan (geography)” is an island, it does not contain Kinmen. “Mainland China (geography)” contains Kinmen. A “state” is a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain geographical territory. Some states are sovereign. Some states are subject to external sovereignty or hegemony where ultimate sovereignty lies in another state. “Republic of China(geopolitical)” is a state controlling Taiwan(geography) and other islands like Kinmen. The area controlled by it is usually called Taiwan (geopolitical). “People’s Republic of China(geopolitical)” is a state controlling most part of mainland China(geography). The area controlled by it is usually called China in most cases, but is called “Mainland China(geopolitical)” when describing the Cross-Strait relations. PE fans (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good. Except that I don't see why you say that Kinmen is included in mainland China. --Khajidha (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PE fans, there is no misunderstandings here. There is a reason why don't mix geography with politics, instead we describe them separately. On the top of this page, there is a notice that says Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. I would like you to read this previous discussion ([8]), as some of the points that you have raised have already been discussed many times before. You are confusing/mixing several topics into one, which is a dangerous thing to do in contentious topics. Focus on your original purpose (the title of this section), and your question has already been answered: (Geography) Taiwan, as an island, is next to mainland China. (Politics)Taiwan, as a state/polity which is the scope of this article (again, read the archive that I linked for you and also recent discussion on this very page), is neighbour with PRC and other states as described in the lede. Anymore re-litigation without raising a valid point that has not been exhaustively discussed prior would no longer be the productive approach. Alex Shih (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

My original purpose was to replace the controversial statement that “Taiwan is not part of PRC” by a neutral statement that “Taiwan not part of Mainland China(geopolitical)”. The changing of title is another issue which has been discussed in ([9]). I will not challenge it .PE fans (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

PE fans, is this ([10]) not your requested edit? I am going to link this article again: Geography of Taiwan. What you are requesting, is under the scope of that article and has already been covered as the way you have requested. Let's review the contested section from this article one more time: Taiwan, is a state/polity. Japan, is a state/polity. the Phillipines, is a state/polity. "Mainland China" is not a state/polity, it's a technical term. The intentionally recognised state/polity is China; however, if this section says "China" instead of "PRC", it creates more NPOV issues as the term "China" creates far more controversies. For once more, there is a reason why we strictly separates geography from politics, so no more "geopolitical" talks, please. Alex Shih (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Alex. Furthermore, "People's Republic of China (PRC)" in the second sentence of the lead balances well with "officially the Republic of China (ROC)" in the first sentence. Phlar (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The lead is misleading readers into believing that Taiwan is a sovereign state

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The lede is giving the correct impression, however some may politically disagree.

---

Judging from User:ONR and User:CookieMonster755's opinions above, the current article is strongly implying that Taiwan is a sovereign state. I think we need a seriously discussion on this issue. The article should by no means imply that Taiwan is a sovereign state; instead, it should clearly indicate that Taiwan is a controversial state whose statehood is in dispute. The current article is failing at conveying the situation. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No, we don’t need another discussion on whether it is a state/country/sovereign state/whatever. We’ve had that discussion and the consensus is it’s best described as just a 'state'. What sort of state is disputed, and that is covered at length in the article, with links to other articles for further coverage.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well said. Phlar (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact does not agree with you. Just in this discussion, we can already see that the article has misled two readers/editors into believing that the article talks about a sovereign state. Who knows how many more readers the article will mislead. Please do not dodge it. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You don’t have to have read all of an article to participate in a discussion like this. Especially a long article, but actually any article. And especially for move discussions where often knowledge of policies, or knowledge of how the name is used outside WP, is more important than detailed knowledge of the topic. If move discussions were limited to only those with in-depth knowledge of the topic they would have far fewer participants and it would be much harder to achieve consensus.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You still can't deny that the lead (especially the first sentence) is failing at clearly letting readers know that Taiwan's statehood is in dispute. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Not again. Get this out of a move RFC...it has no place here! And bringing it up again during an entirely different RfC is disruptive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Matt, please read WP:LISTEN. It's time to move on. Phlar (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The lead is already misleading and you are still okay with it? Sorry, but all I'm seeing is a group of people try to dodge the issue and let the article continue to mislead more readers.

Just check the above discussion "Requested move 15 April 2018" and a previous discussion "Taiwan is a independent country?", it is clear that the lead can mislead readers into believing that Taiwan is a sovereign state. I believe I'm not exaggerating. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The lead is four paragraphs long and explains the situation in detail. Are you talking about the whole lead, or just the first sentence? If you're fixating on the first sentence again, please stop. We've already discussed that ad infinitum.

As to your claim of new evidence that the lead is misleading readers, I see no new evidence of this. The commentators you cited above merely stated that "Taiwan is a country" or "Taiwan is a sovereign state." None of them said "the wording of the lead made me think thus"—you are putting words in their mouths. Like the rest of us, they easily could have come to the discussion with preconceived notions of Taiwan's status. Their stated views are not necessarily reflections of the lead.

I'm not going to discuss this any further, unless somebody actually brings up some valid new points. Phlar (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

So what? Per Phlar they have not raised this as an issue with the article and you are putting words in their mouths. An article talk page is not a reliable source, you can’t use it as a basis for re-opening this issue. Drop it, we’ve wasted enough time on this already.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Samweithe4, Old Naval Rooftops, and CookieMonster755: Please kindly let us know what is making you think that Taiwan is a sovereign state. Is it because the lead is giving you such an impression? --Matt Smith (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't. Just stop. Szqecs (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please desist from hindering others from discussing. You have no ownership of Wikipedia. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean, you can keep wasting your time on this all you want. There is no consensus to whatever you are proposing and should you continue to make changes against the consensus, you would be in violation of Wikipedia policy per WP:LISTEN. Szqecs (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Did I say I propose changing any existing content? I didn't. It's you who is disrupting others' discussion. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

So you are talking about this for fun then? Go right ahead then. Szqecs (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean, the way to address a problem doesn't necessarily have to be changing the existing content; it can also be adding a few sentences. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding sentences is still editing and doing so against consensus is still disruptive editing. If you think your way is the right way, I dare you to take it to arbitration and settle this ongoing BS once and for all. Szqecs (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hold on to that thought. Adding sentences does not touch the existing content and is not necessarily against consensus. By the way, please read WP:Civility. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• The lead is not confusion. The Republic of China has sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, and claims to be the legitimate government of the mainland, too. The PRC has de facto control over the mainland, and claims to be the legitimate government and believes the ROC is a rogue entity. CookieMonster755✉ 14:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

So does the lead give you an impression that Taiwan is a sovereign state? --Matt Smith (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2018 (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.

Please revert to the not-wrong version

Oshwah definitely protected the "wrong version" here. The POV-pushing of the current version (from an IP editor) is suffocating. Please revert to [11] or a status quo ante bellum of your choice. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The last revert must have been a mistake....have informed locking admin.--Moxy (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The last revert was probably mistakenly done. A restoration to the status quo would be appropriate.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

and done by Dlohcierekim power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually no it was not. That version of the lead has never been there. It looks like the last stable version of the lead was right here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, he fixed it again. Thanks Dlohcierekim. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

"wealthy and properous" ?

I mean, yeah, Taiwan is a developed country/region, but I've never seen any of the entries of the developed countries dubbed themselves as "wealthy and prosperous". Oh, and whoever wrote that cannot spell "prosperous" right. So I guess I am just questioning the impartiality of those two phrase, and I suggest they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan Qiu (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It's someone persistently editing the page with nationalist propaganda. The page was already protected a few days ago because of this, but it seems they are back now that the protection has been removed. PaganPanzer (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just the facts, Taiwan is indeed a very rich and wealthy country, just based on GDP per capita alone, please do not distort or cover up the truth. Are you working for the communist Chinese propaganda outlets?118.200.20.161 (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is distorted or covered up. The third paragraph of the lead already says:

Taiwan is the 22nd-largest economy in the world, and its high-tech industry plays a key role in the global economy. It is ranked highly in terms of freedom of the press, healthcare, public education, economic freedom, and human development. The country benefits from a highly skilled workforce and is among the most highly educated countries in the world with one of the highest percentages of its citizens holding a tertiary education degree.

The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article. Brevity is essential here. By all means suggest adjustments to the wording, but jamming large amounts of promotional material into the first paragraph makes the lead unusable. Kanguole 11:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Breaking News

Only 18 UN states left recognizing the Nationalist Chinese government. Dominican Republic, which raises the PRC recognition to 176.

Dominican Republic establishes diplomatic ties with China, breaks with Taiwan

-108.162.177.213 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

So? Most of the world "recognizes" Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan on paper, but ignores it in practice. See Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. --Khajidha (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018

Taiwan is its OWN COUNTRY! It is NOT part of CHINA! I demand this change throughout the entire description, "please". Brad Davis (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Change what? Is any content in the article implying that Taiwan is part of China? --Matt Smith (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the problems here is using "Taiwan" as synonym of "Republic of China" (this is why the Spanish Wikipedia community decided to use the official names for the both countries/states called China (the ROC and the PRC), and that was largely duscussed).

Short answer: The PRC says that Taiwan (Formosa) is a province of its own, while the ROC says that Continental China is part of they, in other words, the territory is disputed.

Long answer: The PRC haven't executed sovereignty successfully over the Taiwan territory (by invading the territory, placing the PRC flag there, and "replacing" the Nationalist government with the Communist one, and this will happen when the ROC escalates the "Taiwan independence movement", that the Communists will not accept, entering in war), so, the ROC is still executing soberanity over that territory.

Then, who is right? This depend on the country of your recidence; claiming what China (the states) owns the territory of Continental China, Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu is just a posture.

Read the related articles and you will found the answer for this political division, specially this and this.

And finally, the only country called "Taiwan" was the Republic of Formosa, existed for short time at the end of the XIX century. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the problem is using "Taiwan" as synonym of "Republic of China", whether the ROC is executing "sovereignty" over Taiwan (island) is disputable. Some claim that what the ROC is executing over Taiwan (island) is just "jurisdiction" as a result of military occupation since 1945. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm you're right by mentioning "jurisdiction", a more correct term, or "occupation", that describes better the status of Taiwan (the island). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan is a independent country?

Taiwan is it really a independent country.....but no country recognizes that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samweithe4 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinions are differing on this topic. Is any content in the article implying that Taiwan is an independent country? If so, please let us know and we will try to improve the content. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

A few small countries do recognise Taiwan and have diplomatic relationships with it. See #Foreign_relations. Exactly what that recognition means in practice is unclear. None of those countries is able to come to Taiwan’s defence if its de-facto independence is under threat.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of those recognitions are to recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate representative of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This is silly. YES it is an independent country. Proof? There is no way to enforce any laws passed outside of Taiwan upon the population of Taiwan. THAT is the definition of independent. China can claim Taiwan (and the rest of the world can more or less humor them in word while ignoring them in deed) but Beijing has no control over Taiwan. --Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s more complicated than that. In reality, China is divided between two rival governments; the "Republic of China" and the "People's Republic of China" and the only thing they agree on is that Taiwan is part of China. Taiwan could possibly be described as de facto independent for the reasons you mentioned. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t one country. After all, Libya, Syria and Yemen are also divided between rival administrations, but those internal divisions don’t make them separate countries. Charles Essie (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the state of affairs in those places, I'm not sure I would categorize them as even being countries at the moment. --Khajidha (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. /thread. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Illegitimate Barrister: Does the lead text give you that impression? --Matt Smith (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: Now it does. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– I think the title of this article should be "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Here is the reason: After the ending of Chinese Civil War between 1946 and 1950, the Government of the Republic of China moved to Taiwan on December 7, 1949, but remains "Republic of China" as its official name from then on. Thus, Republic of China (Taiwan) is one of the successors of Republic of China between 1912 and 1949. The term "Republic of China (Taiwan)" can better describe the regime which is named as "Republic of China" and de facto controls Taiwan since 1949. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see my comment very Bellow. Renaming this article back to ROC implies to rename also China to PRC, and this needs community concensus.

Since "Taiwan" is an ambiguous term, the Spanish Wikipedia community decided to use the official names for both Chinas (and there is an interesting discussion about that in the ROC talk page), but the English Wikipedia community decided to use colloquial names. This is not incorrect, but the use of the colloquial name caused confussion, specially on those ones who haven't even read the related articles and understanded the delicate situation between the Nationalist Party and the Communist Party, in summary, the history of China in the XX century.

Although I agree to rename (actually inverting redirections) Taiwan to Republic of China and China to Peoples Republic of China, is the community that should decide, since this was discussed already. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Proposal to rename back China to People's Republic of China, and Taiwan to Republic of China

Please follow and comment this discussion. I already read the discussion about the rejected rename of this article to the official name some years ago. So, due the previous recent discussion, I propose to rename back this to the official name, and I'm finding opinions why this should not be done now. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sure everyone calls Taiwan Taiwan. Georgia guy (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right when mentioning everyone calls Taiwan to the ROC, and as I mentioned above, this is not wrong at all. But, I'm talking about naming the country in a formal context: The countries that only recognizes the ROC call the "country" as "Republic of China" (Taiwan/Formosa, Penghu, etc), while the countries that recognize only the PRC call that "territory" as "Taiwan, province of the People's Republic of China". This is why I'm proposing this re-renaming, to avoid misleading mess. And also, the ROC was known and called "China" until the International community started to stop recognizing the ROC in favor of the PRC, and even, until the creation of the PRC. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• I second the proposal because it reduces confusion and makes things clearer. The current article name and some of the content are misleading, in my opinion. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• How?? Please don't say "See this discussion". Georgia guy (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The article aims to talk about a regime called "Republic of China", whose history began in 1912. However, the content of the article focus on of Taiwan (island), whose history dates back 20,000 to 30,000 years. That can't be more misleading. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The page Taiwan (island) re-directs to Geography of Taiwan. Georgia guy (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• I know that. Be it Taiwan (island) or Geography of Taiwan, that article talks about an island named Taiwan or Formosa. The reason I use "Taiwan (island)" is to make it clear that what I'm talking about is an island named Taiwan, not an Chinese regime which is being referred to as Taiwan for some reason. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Georgia guy, please give a good comment, don't be Captain Obvious. -Amitie 10g (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Amitie 10g, please reveal what this country is known as to the general public. Georgia guy (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion is about the renaming of the article in a formal basis, not the opinions of the people around the world. As I mentioned, Taiwan is an ambiguous term that can mean an island, a province of the ROC, a province of the PRC, or the colloquial way to name that country, and what I'm finding is avoiding the use of the colloquial name (as well as the Spanish Wikipedia community decided over the general Naming policy, known here as Ignore the rules, and this is IMHO a clear case), I repeat, to avoid the mess in the article, and telling the official name from the beginning (the title).

I know the English Wikipedia has its own policies and POV that differs from the Spanish Wikipedia. Your opinion matters, but Me (and we) expect more rigurous comments rather than personal reasons based on the idiosyncrasy of the American people (WP:IAR).

If your country does not recognize the ROC, then, Taiwan is a province of the PRC (my country also stopped to recognize the ROC in favor of the PRC). Despite de limited recognizing of the ROC, this does not mean the country does not exist, and this does not mean the country is not called "Republic of China".

Also, as you're asking, the only country called "Taiwan" was the Republic of Formosa, existed in very short time at the end of the XIX century. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Matt Smith, you're unfortunately right. As this article is related to THE ROC, every content related to Taiwan (Formosa) that is not part of the history of the ROC should me moved to the respective articles (at least this if the rename is rejected). The same applies to the PRC. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The proper way to move an article is a requested move discussion. But we’ve had one of those already – Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20 – and the outcome was to move it to the current title, "Taiwan". I can’t see the outcome being any different this time. If anything in the years since the name "Republic of China" has drifted even further into history, and the country is overwhelmingly known as "Taiwan" now. So you could start a requested move, but I am pretty sure the outcome will be the same as the one is 2012.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Then, should be better to fix the mess in this article, moving every content unrelated to the ROC. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Republic of China redirects here as it is the same as Taiwan. They are two names for the same country. There is no separate article to move content to.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about moving the contents related to Taiwan but not the ROC to other articles related to Taiwan (like the island or the history of Taiwan -not the ROC- before 1949), as the rename proposal will be rejected. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

And even more entrenched is that the PRC is pretty much universally called China. This is really the thread that will never die as there's always going to be a vocal tidbit minority that refuses to accept what everyone else has known for decades. I think Wikipedia needs to have a rubber stamp made so we can simply respond to these postings with a standard "press and go." Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I expected comments based in a more geo-political basis rather than how the world calls those countries. I know and understand why the English Wikipedia preferred the colloquial name based on Naming policy, while the Spanish Wikipedia community preferred to apply "Ignore the rules" and use the official names (and is funny to see the opposite discussions in both Wikipedias).

I'm somewhat convincing the community to rename back those articles I admit, but to a greater extent, opinions about this controversial actions. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To Amitie 10g: I support to change the title of this article to "Republic of China (Taiwan)", and make this article as Republic of China-only. Please see my comment in the discussion "Proposal to make this article as Republic of China-only". The content that "The country now known as the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, is a new state that did not exist before 1949. It is clearly not the same thing as the Republic of China that existed before 1949." said by JohnBlackburne in the discussion "Proposal to make this article as Republic of China-only" leans to support Taiwan independence movement. This is the possible reason why JohnBlackburne opposes to changing the title of this article to "Republic of China" and insists on remaining the current name "Taiwan".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for new article guideline

Reading through the article, as well as having watchlisted all changes and aware of the political dispute between PRC and ROC, I propose that we add the following guideline to the guidelines box:

Please also refrain from referring to Taiwan as a region governed by mainland China, or insinuate that it is not part of mainland China, as it is recognized as a de-facto state, but not a de-jure state.

This should (hopefully) remind editors that this is a highly sensitive topic, as well as one of great contention, and as such should stray from the established status-quo. Dark-World25 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that "state" in your proposal means sovereignty state. I think that is still controversial. I suggest changing it and make the whole new guideline:

Please refrain from referring to Taiwan as part of mainland China, or insinuate that it is not part of mainland China. Also, please refrain from insinuating that Taiwan is or is not a sovereignty state.

--Matt Smith (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The standard definition of mainland China specifically excludes Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. "Insinuating" that Taiwan is not part of Mainland China is not controversial. Phlar (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

By that I mean under the sovereign control of the Mainland government or that Taiwan is a separate sovereign country, which is what both governments agree on. The thing they don't agree on is who is actually "China".Dark-World25 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In this article, we are using "Taiwan" as the common name for the ROC. Are you saying we should not acknowledge the ROC’s status as a sovereign state? Phlar (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is the problem (as I mentioned above), using "Taiwan" as synonymous of "Republic of China". The guideline should clarify the difference between the name of the island (and the colloquial name) and the official name. Taiwan (the island and the province) is "part" of the both Chinas, and this is specified in other articles related to Taiwan; the POV of any China should not be specified in the articles (at least very brief).

This issue happened in the Spanish Wikipedia, and I reverted those editions as a violation of NPOV, as other articles like Taiwan province and Taiwan province, People's Republic of China has already the related information from the both China's POV. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to make this article as Republic of China-only

This, per the whole previous discussion here and the China talk page.

This article is supposed to be related to the "Republic of China" (the country/State), and even, this article starts with "Taiwan (/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/), officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia.".

But, this is currently a mess, a mix of other contents more related to the history of the island rather than the State, considering that a country called "Taiwan" (Republic of Formosa) existed previously over the island, and this shouldn't be part of this art useicle.

As the renaming proposed above by me will be rejected (and is ironic that the Spanish Wikipedia rejected to rename "República de China" to "Taiwan" and "República Popular China" to "China"), I propose to wipe this (and the China) article to be only related to the country/State, and move the unrelated contents to other, more suitable, already existing articles related to Taiwan. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Amitie 10g, I see from your user page you are a Spanish speaker. This perhaps explains your misconceptions about the names of this country. It is normal naming practices to differ significantly between different languages, both in the wider world and on Wikipedia. In particular the common name, which determines the title of this article per WP:COMMONNAME, is the name commonly used in English. Usage in Spanish or any other language is irrelevant, and can be misleading. If you are not a native speaker you are perhaps thinking in Spanish rather than English, and so that is why you are failing to understand why this article is at Taiwan.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So, what is this article about? About a country, an island or both? Originally, this article was named "Republic of China" and intended to be related to the sole country, but... --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s about the country, commonly called Taiwan, formally called Republic of China. For the island there’s Geography of Taiwan.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Then, why it includes large portions of the history of the island before even the creation of the ROC in 1912? --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

As that’s how history works. Just because the KMT arrived in 1949 and declared the ROC in 1949, does not mean there was nothing there before. The people who took part in that history are still in Taiwan, or their descendants are, such as Taiwanese aborigines.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That's how history of Taiwan works, not how history of the Republic of China works. Since this article is for the Republic of China, please cease to confuse it with Taiwan (island). Besides, the ROC was declared on mainland China in 1912, not on Taiwan in 1949. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Republic of China (1912–1949) was a period of Chinese history, preceding the current People’s Republic of China., The UN, numerous countries and bodies all now recognise that China is the rightful successor of the Republic of China that existed before 1949. The country now known as the Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan, is a new state that did not exist before 1949. It is clearly not the same thing as the Republic of China that existed before 1949.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Did I say the PRC did not assume the ROC's role of China? You're talking about the issue of Chinese representation, and that's not the topic of this disccusion.

Just because the ROC fled to Taiwan does not make it a new thing. The ROC is still the ROC, and the difference is just that it lost most of its territory and its recognitions. Your claim that the ROC is a new state after 1949 is untenable. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you also proposing to remove all pre-Federation history from the Australia article, as well as the sections about geography, climate and biodiversity, since they have nothing to do with the Commonwealth of Australia? This is a well established layout for all articles on countries, if you oppose it here then you need to oppose it everywhere. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To PaganPanzer: This article mainly talks about the regime whose official name is "Republic of China", whose government moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949 and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China since 1949, not "Taiwan area" itself. The history of Taiwan before the Government of the Republic of China moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949 is irrelevant to the regime "Republic of China" and this article, so it should be deleted from this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That didn't address my comment. Is the history of Australia before the federation of the Commonwealth of Australia irrelevant in the Australia article? PaganPanzer (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To PaganPanzer: I find the essential problem: "Australia" equals to "Commonwealth of Australia", but "Taiwan" doesn't equal to "Republic of China". "Republic of China" mentioned by this article is a Chinese regime whose government moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949 and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China since 1949, so the history of the regime "Republic of China" should be the history of China, especially "History of the Republic of China". "Taiwan" is an area, not a country, so the history of "Taiwan area" should be "History of Taiwan", but it is irrelevant to the regime "Republic of China" and this article. Please distinguish from each other.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To everyone here: I think the better title of this article should be "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Here are the reasons:

First, this article mainly talks about the regime whose official name is "Republic of China", whose government moved to Free area of the Republic of China on December 7, 1949 and de facto controls the area since 1949. People's Republic of China was established on October 1, 1949 in Mainland China. This indicates that the regime is a Chinese confrontational regime with People's Republic of China after the ending of Chinese Civil War between 1946 and 1950, and the two regime belong to the same country "China". If you call the regime as colloquial name "Taiwan", it is ambiguous and misleading because it possibly implys that Taiwan is a independent country, but isn't a Chinese regime, isn't a part of China, which the people support Taiwan independence movement insist.

Second, "Republic of China" is the regime's official name, "Taiwan" is a name of the area. "Taiwan" is an ambiguous term. It may mean that: Taiwan island (see Geography of Taiwan); Free area of the Republic of China, also called "Taiwan area"; Taiwan Province, a province of the Republic of China; Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China; Taiwan, China, a controversial term presenting Taiwan as part of China, and so on. In order to define the regime clearly, distinguish from "Taiwan area" de facto controlled by the regime itself and its predecessor Republic of China between 1912 and 1949, we had better use "Republic of China (Taiwan) to call the regime. It is more rigorous.

In addition, the content of this article introduces the history of Taiwan before the Government of the Republic of China moved to Free area of the Republic of China on December 7, 1949, please show like "The history of Taiwan before the Government of the Republic of China moved to Free area of the Republic of China on December 7, 1949, see History of Taiwan", because this article mainly talks about the regime which is named as "Republic of China" and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China since 1949, not "Taiwan area" itself. And when we introduce the regime at the beginning of this article, we should say like "Republic of China, whose government moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949, de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China since 1949. Free area of the Republic of China consists of the island groups of Taiwan island, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and some minor islands".

In conclusion, I support to change the title of this article to "Republic of China (Taiwan)", and make this article as Republic of China-only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The proposed name is only "Republic of China". If you want to propose a different name, please open a new discussion. But I personally don't like your version. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To Matt Smith: This article mainly talks about the regime whose official name is "Republic of China", whose government moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949 and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China (also called "Taiwan area") since 1949. In order to distinguish from Republic of China between 1912 and 1949, I think that it is a good idea to change the title of this article to "Republic of China (Taiwan)". It is more rigorous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Formosa is Republic of Formosa and Taiwan is Taiwan. I don't see how you can mess them up. France and South Korea both had several republics with the same name, and are just named accordingly; I don't see the problem. Countries expand territories all the time, and the history sections just include the history of all current territories, which in this case includes Taiwan. By your logic, the PRC article should only contain history since 1949. Szqecs (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• You're somewhat wrong. Republic of Formosa is "State of Taiwan", while "Taiwan", strictly talking, it means several entities, but in this case, it means the "Republic of China", and as I mentioned, the article should reflect that (and this is reflected from the beginning. Your statement "Taiwan" is "Taiwan" is not wrong at all, but the community and the people in general should distinguish between "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" (even if this article is still called Taiwan). (I know the naming is just by idiosyncrasy of the American people, but this should not mislead the main target of this article, wich even start with "Taiwan (/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/), officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia", therefore, the article should talk about only by the history of the ROC since 1912, and again, even if the article is called "Taiwan").

Think in this argument to vote in the survey Bellow). --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says Republic of Formosa is an incorrect name and that it has been called "State of Taiwan"? Remember that we are dealing with English here. The source in the lead sentence says Republic of Formosa. As for distinguishing, people don't distinguish a lot of things. In United Kingdom, it says it is also known as Britain, when Britain is actually the geographical island without Northern Ireland. United Kingdom is not the same as England, yet the article contains history before the union. All this just doesn't matter. Szqecs (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To everyone here: I find the essential problem: After the ending of Chinese Civil War between 1946 and 1950, the political situation of China is "sole China, two Chinese regimes". There is sole China as a country in the world, which the two Chinese regimes insist. One of the Chinese regime is "People's Republic of China", which was established on October 1, 1949 in Mainland China and de facto controls Mainland China since 1949; the other one of the Chinese regime is "Republic of China", whose government moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949 and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China (also called "Taiwan area") since 1949. Thus, the history of the two Chinese regimes should be same as the history of China. We should add the content "history of China", especially "History of the Republic of China" to this article. "Republic of China" is a Chinese regime, "Taiwan" is an area de facto controlled by the regime "Republic of China" and a part of China, so "Taiwan" doesn't equal to "Republic of China". Thus, the history of "Taiwan area" should be "History of Taiwan". "History of Taiwan" is irrelevant to the regime "Republic of China" and this article, so it should be deleted from this article. This article mainly talks about the regime whose official name is "Republic of China", whose government moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949 and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China (also called "Taiwan area") since 1949. In order to distinguish from Republic of China between 1912 and 1949, I think it is a good idea to change the title of this article to "Republic of China (Taiwan)". In other words, it is very relevant between the two thing that changing the article's title to "Republic of China" and making the article content "Republic of China-only".

In conclusion, there are my opinions: 1. Change the title of this article to "Republic of China (Taiwan)". 2. Add the content "history of China", especially "History of the Republic of China" to this article, and delete the content "History of Taiwan" from this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To everyone here: It is necessary to repeat the fact about China here: After Chinese Civil War between 1946 and 1950, there is sole China as a state in the world, and there are two Chinese regimes in the sole China: one of the Chinese regime is "People's Republic of China", which was established on October 1, 1949 in Mainland China and de facto controls Mainland China since 1949; the other one of the Chinese regime is "Republic of China", whose government moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949 and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China (also called "Taiwan area") since 1949. The two Chinese regimes belong to the sole China and claim the sovereignty consists of the whole China. The situation of China mentioned above is different from the situation in Germany, Korean Peninsula, Vietnam and Yemen during the Cold War. Each of the four separated areas had two states and their respective regimes. It is also different from the history of United Kingdom, a history that at first separated, then unified, finally separated again between states in the British Isles.

This article mainly talks about the regime whose official name is Republic of China, whose government moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949 and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China (also called "Taiwan area") since 1949, not Taiwan, the area de facto controlled by the regime "Republic of China". Taiwan is an area, not a state, not a regime. "Taiwan" doesn't equal to "Republic of China". According to the article theme and the political situation of China mentioned above, there are some suggestions to this article: 1. The title of this article should change to "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to distinguish from Republic of China between 1912 and 1949, and describe the regime more rigorously. 2. We should use the map "File:Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg" to describe the regime "Republic of China", because it claims its sovereignty consists of the whole China and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China. The map "File:Locator map of the ROC Taiwan.svg" should be deleted from this article. 3. "Republic of China" is a Chinese regime, so we should add the content "history of China", especially "History of the Republic of China" as its history to this article, and delete the irrelevant content "history of Taiwan before the Government of the Republic of China moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949" from this article. 4. When we introduce the regime at the beginning of this article, we should say like "Republic of China, whose government moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949, de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China since 1949. Free area of the Republic of China consists of the island groups of Taiwan island, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and some minor islands".

In conclusion, it is very relevant between the two thing that changing the article's title to "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and making the article content "Republic of China-only".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the ROC has officially given up its claim over Outer Mongolia in 2012 so the correct map should be File:Republic_of_China_(orthographic_projection)_excluding_Outer_Mongolia.svg. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To the opposers: The article's title and content in Wikipedia should be rigorous. "Republic of China" mentioned by this article is a Chinese regime. Taiwan is an area de facto controlled by the regime "Republic of China". Thus, "Taiwan" doesn't equal to "Republic of China". Please distinguish from each other. Please see my comments in the discussion "Proposal to make this article as Republic of China-only" named as "To everyone here".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You have just declared "The article's title and content in Wikipedia should be rigorous", right after I pointed out that the title of United States is not rigorous. Nor, for that matter, is the article for my country, Australia. Complete rigour would demand Commonwealth of Australia. Must we change them too? In a discussion like this you need to actually respond to the comments of others, not simply continue to bombard them with your opinion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To HiLo48: Please make your comments after learning about my comments above and studying Chinese history carefully. At present "Australia" equals to "Commonwealth of Australia", "United States" equals to "United States of America", because there are sole Australia and sole United States as states in the world and there is sole regime in each of the two states. In other words, the state and the regime of Australia and United States are oneness. However China is different. It is undoubted that after the ending of Chinese Civil War between 1946 and 1950, there is sole China as a state in the world, but there are two Chinese regimes: the one is "People's Republic of China", which was established on October 1, 1949 and de facto controls Chinese mainland only since 1949; the other one is "Republic of China", which moved its government to Taipei on December 7, 1949 and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China (also called "Taiwan area") only since 1949. Both of the two Chinese regimes claim the sovereignty consists of the whole China. It is also undoubted that "Taiwan" is an area de facto controlled by the regime "Republic of China", not a state or a regime, so "Taiwan" doesn't equal to "Republic of China". In order to distinguish "Republic of China" from "People's Republic of China", it is necessary to use the official name to name this article, instead of the colloquial name. The situation of China is different from Australia and United States, so it is different between the methods of naming this article and naming the article about the state of Australia and United States. It is also rigorous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So you have dropped your argument that "The article's title and content in Wikipedia should be rigorous". Righto. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To HiLo48: No, I never do that. If you are really rigorous, you will treat the same problems with same methods and treat the different problems with different methods. I repeat my opinion here: The situation of China is different from Australia and United States, so it is different between the methods of naming this article and naming the article about the state of Australia and United States. You can name the article about the state of Australia and United States with their common name, but you should name this article with the official name "Republic of China", because "Taiwan" doesn't equal to "Republic of China", and the term "Taiwan" is ambiguous, however the terms "Australia" and "United States" are clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you certainly have repeated your opinion here. Many times. Please stop. HiLo48 (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Area controlled by a regime" is a pretty damn good definition of a state. --Khajidha (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To Khajidha: So why do you oppose the proposal "making this article content Republic of China-only"? You agree that Taiwan is a part of China, not a state or a regime. In addition "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" are Chinese regimes which belong to sole China as a state. Right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NOPE. I do not agree that Taiwan is part of China. "Taiwan" is a state consisting of the regime the "Republic of China" controlling the island of Taiwan and several smaller islands. "China" is a state consisting of the regime the "People's Republic of China" and the areas it controls. Neither has been part of the other for almost 70 years now and to think that they are all part of some "one-China" is delusional. --Khajidha (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To Khajidha: So do you support "Taiwan independence movement"? Please simply answer with "Yes" or "No". Your comment above is a perversion of the truth of Chinese history and it isn't neutral. Please make your comments after learning about my comments above and studying Chinese history carefully. The truth of China at present is that: After Chinese Civil War between 1946 and 1950, there is sole China as a state in the world, and there are two Chinese regimes in the sole China: one of the Chinese regime is "People's Republic of China", which was established on October 1, 1949 and de facto controls Chinese mainland since 1949; the other one of the Chinese regime is "Republic of China", whose government moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949 and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China (also called "Taiwan area") since 1949. The two Chinese regimes belong to the sole China and claim the sovereignty consists of the whole China. There isn't a state called "Taiwan" because "Taiwan" is a part of China.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

1) Learn how to format replies correctly; 2) I neither support nor oppose the "Taiwan independence movement" because such a movement is irrelevant, Taiwan IS independent; 3) the truth is after the Chinese Civil War two states exist, China and Taiwan, there is no "sole China". The clue is in the "de facto" you keep using, the FACT is they are not part of one whole, they are TWO. --Khajidha (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw the comments made by everyone here. I support the comments made by 123.124.233.241. It is undoubted that you support "Taiwan independence movement" and your comment is a perversion of the truth of Chinese history. Please don't quibble again. Please see the article "One Country on Each Side" and the first paragraph of Chen Shui-bian#Political positions carefully. You will find that your opinions is same as the opinions of Chen Shui-bian who supports "Taiwan independence movement". The truth of Chinese history is that: Taiwan is a part of China for a long time. In 1895, after the ending of First Sino-Japanese War, China (represented by the regime "Qing dynasty") ceded Taiwan island and Penghu to Japan by Treaty of Shimonoseki. In 1945, after the ending of World War II, Japan handed over the sovereignty of Taiwan island and Penghu to China (represented by the regime "Republic of China"). The fact after 1945 is repeated by 123.124.233.241 for many times. Thus, it is undoubted that Taiwan is a part of China, there is sole China as a state and there are two Chinese regime: "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China". Your opinions are ridiculous very much. You should study Chinese history very hard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.253.207.79 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

!) You also need to learn to format replies correctly. 2) I will agree to study Chinese history when the two of you agree to study the English language. 3) The facts on the ground show that Taiwan and China are separate countries. Neither can legislate or negotiate for the other, nothing done in either capital has any effect on the people living in the other. Any claims by either to the other are simply fantasies with no real world importance. --Khajidha (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You are so stubborn that you insist your ridiculous mistakes. Everyone here (including me) have studied English language, so everyone here (including me) can communicate with each other with English language fluently. Thus, you should study Chinese history very hard from now on. In addition, do you support the opinions insisted by Chen Shui-bian in the article "One Country on Each Side" and the first paragraph of Chen Shui-bian#Political positions? Please simply answer with "Yes" or "No".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.253.207.79 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

1) "Everyone here (including me) have studied English language, so everyone here (including me) can communicate with each other with English language fluently." A statement that disproves itself. 2) I have read them. Those statements are about how China and Taiwan should conduct themselves, I am talking about how the world should treat them. The two are compatible, but not the same. --Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add that, it's inappropriate to assert that Japan handed over the sovereignty of Taiwan and Penghu to the ROC in 1945. That assertion is China's own POV. From the viewpoint of international law, what the ROC did in 1945 was merely starting the post-war military occupation of Japanese Taiwan on behalf of the whole body of allied powers, and that has nothing to do with the transfer of sovereignty. In other words, from the viewpoint of international law, China (ROC) did not acquire the sovereignty of Taiwan in 1945. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey section

• Oppose Countries or nations have histories that extend back long before the formal founding of the contemporary nation/state. Also, they have geographic, cultural and demographic features that have little to do with their political structure. This article should cover all of those aspects, although neutral spinoff articles could be created. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• As the logical applied, as the country is called "Republic of China", the article should also include the history of the Continental China, but it belongs to China... what a mess.

Also, History of Taiwan, a more suitable place to talk about the pre-ROC history and culture, including the State called "Taiwan" (Republic of Formosa). -Amitie 10g (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Taiwan is the best name for this article as was shown in 2012 and 2014. Nothing has changed in the interim years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not discussing the rename here (the above thread is about that). This discussion is about the removal of everything unrelated of the history of the ROC since 1912 (see my above answer), its establishiment over Beijing and posterior moving to Taipei in 1949. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• The article United States has tons of info on U.S. history before 1776, just like this article has info. There are interrelated and should not be removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To Fyunck(click): I find the essential problem: The history of United States includes the history before its independence, but "Taiwan" doesn't equal to "Republic of China", thus the history between the two is different. "Republic of China" mentioned by this article is a Chinese regime whose government moved to Taipei on December 7, 1949 and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China since 1949, so the history of the regime "Republic of China" should be the history of China, especially "History of the Republic of China". "Taiwan" is an area, not a country, so the history of "Taiwan area" should be "History of Taiwan", but it is irrelevant to the regime "Republic of China" and this article. Please distinguish from each other.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Look, you state your case up above the survey section and try to convince editors that your version is best. They read everything, decide, and then give their conclusions in this section where no amount of continued posting here is really going to change minds. It's snowballing into keeping things as they are. Taiwan is the preferred English name of the country in question, and Republic of China is the formal rarely used name. We have it listed under the common name, make sure that it spells out the formal name, and then use the common name throughout. Then we fill the article with the usual things that country articles like the United States has. That's about it, so move along. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To Fyunck(click): Please make your comments after learning about my comments here and studying Chinese history carefully. I repeat the fact that "Taiwan" doesn't equal to "Republic of China" for many times in this talk page. It is ridiculous to use the colloquial and ambiguous term "Taiwan" to call the regime "Republic of China" because they are too different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

They're equal in English... move along. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To Fyunck(click): I agree with the comment made by 123.124.233.241. It clarifys the political situation of China at present. "Taiwan" doesn't equal to "Republic of China". It is ridiculous to use the colloquial and ambiguous term "Taiwan" to call the regime "Republic of China" because they are too different. We should correct the big mistake in English Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.253.207.79 10:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

note - This IP account was created just today, and has edited the same articles as another IP conversing here. That's very suspicious activity. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Reason mentioned above. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Reason mentioned above (in the discussion "Taiwan is a independent country?" and "Proposal to make this article as Republic of China-only"). I agree with Amitie 10g and Matt Smith. The article content in Wikipedia should be rigorous and clear. This article mainly talks about the regime which is named as "Republic of China" and de facto controls Free area of the Republic of China (also called "Taiwan area") since 1949. This is the reason why I support to change the title of this article to "Republic of China (Taiwan)". The irrelevant content like "history of Taiwan before Government of the Republic of China moved to Free area of the Republic of China on December 7, 1949" in this article should be deleted. You can learn about it in the article History of Taiwan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Taiwan is a independent country?" demonstrated the ignorance of the history of China in the XX century. As the discussion at the Spanish Wikipedia, the delicate situation discourages the use of colloquialisms (starting from the title). But, as here the renaming proposal will be rejected, at least, this article should reflect clearly what is the "Republic of China" (although the title is the colloquial name). The history of the island and its culture had their own articles. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To Amitie 10g: The content that "Taiwan is a independent country?" appeared in my comment above is the title of the first discussion in this talk page, not my opinion. And I oppose to the opinion like "Taiwan is a independent country" forever.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Naming the article of a country after its common-use name rather than the official name for its sovereign government is a well established pattern, as is including information about the area's history prior to the sovereignty of the current government. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Again, this is not about the renaming, but the removal of anything unrelated to the ROC. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Then address my comment above. Do you also want to remove anything unrelated to the Commonwealth of Australia in the Australia article? How about anything unrelated to the Argentine Republic in the Argentina article? -- PaganPanzer (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Australia is a different case, since it was occupied by aborigens and colonized by the British, then established. While Taiwan has been occupied by aborigens, where a country called "Republic of Formosa" established in a short period of time before the Japanese people occupied the territory, then returned to the chinese (the Communist Party haven't founded the PRC yet), then controlled by the ROC, then moved its capital from Nanjing to Taipei, then established in Taiwan, then recognized as a State until the majority of the International community decided to stop recognizing the ROC in favor of the PRC (considering Taiwan as a province of the PRC), a long period of conflicts between both states (the territory is disputed, this is why the community and people in general should not mix the history of the territory with the history of the State, as this article was intended to be). As I already mentioned, the history of Taiwan not related to the ROC has their own articles(s). --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So what? Many countries and governments have had turbulent histories, such as Germany, for which there is a separate article about West Germany, just as there is a separate article for Republic of China (1912–1949). This article is meant to reflect the contemporary state of Taiwan as it is used in common language, which it does. I don't think the territory being disputed is reason to break from the precedent set by other articles about countries. -- PaganPanzer (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To PaganPanzer: Please see my comments in the discussion "Proposal to make this article as Republic of China-only" named as "To PaganPanzer" and "To everyone here". Then you will find your mistake.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose leave the topic as it is, all the alternatives have been more controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Per above. Don't delete people's comment; you will get less support. Szqecs (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Per all the reasons given by the other opposers. --Khajidha (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• oppose for the reasons given in above section - this seems to be based on a misconception by the proposer; it is not clear what problem it would solve or even exactly what is desired.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• oppose, "Taiwan" is the common name both for the post-1949 ROC and for the island and all of that should be discussed in an article called "Taiwan". Including pre-ROC Taiwan here is just as correct as including pre-PRC China in China is. . For some reason my previous oppose [12] was removed by Amitie 10g. —Kusma (t·c) 18:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, the removal of the comment was due an Edit conflict. I apologize for that. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - this is the survey section. The pontificate section is above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose To the vast majority of English speaking people, this is about a country commonly called Taiwan. It's as simple as that. It's just the same as having an article for the United States. Everyone knows what it's referring to, but it's not the official name of the place. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:CommonName. Phlar (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Reason mentioned above by other supporters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.253.207.79 10:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

note - This IP account was created just today, and has edited the same articles as another IP conversing here. That's very suspicious activity. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it is virtually certain that these are the same person editing under two IP addresses. Their mutual usage of "perversion of the truth of Chinese history" seems conclusive. --Khajidha (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

And I've reported it. They even edit the same articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Time to move on

Nothing new has been brought up here that wasn't already covered in the 2012 and 2014 discussions. It's clear from the survey section that the consensus opposes the proposal. Time to close this discussion. Phlar (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

To Phlar: The discussion "Proposal to make this article as Republic of China-only" should be ended by its proposer Amitie 10g, instead of yourself, one of the opposers of the proposal. It isn't neutral to withdraw a proposal by its opposers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

He didn't end it. He's asking for an administrator or neutral editor to end it because it's a WP:Snowball. You should worry about your own misbehavior here and the fact it was reported to administration. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It is neutral to ask for ending this discussion by this discussion's proposer Amitie 10g, instead of others. There isn't any misbehavior of myself here. I am innocent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.124.233.241 (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You should read up on WP:RfCl, and WP:SOCK. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Does this matter? Accusing others of assuming bad faith just because they differ your POV is assuming bad faith. Everyone is permited to give their comments, and I'm not who judge the opinions of others, but, IS IMHO, I agree the articles should be rigurous; this is why the Spanish Wikipedia communuty decided to ignore the rules and appealing to the common sense, the main reason why I proposed the change here. This issue is related to the English-speaking people idiosyncrasy rather than Wikipedia policy, and this kind of articles should be rigurous, starting from the title). --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The current name of the article is based on a rigorous application of the Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME.

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)....

(emphasis added)

Your proposal seems to be based on your own opinion of what "should" be done, not on policy. If you want other editors to accept your proposal, you will need to cite other policies to justify violating WP:COMMONNAME. Phlar (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

He already cited WP:Ignore all rules two time before. I think that policy fits in well with this case. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The ignore all rules policy only tells us to ignore rules that are preventing us from improving the encyclopedia. See WP:IAR?. None of the opposers in the above survey section are saying, "I’d really like to support this proposal, but the rules prevent me from doing so." They oppose it because they feel it would not improve the encyclopedia. Phlar (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

He means WP:COMMONNAME is preventing us from improving this article so we should ignore it. I have the same thought. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"Improvement" is subjective. I feel that WP:COMMONNAME is blocking you and him from damaging the article, not from improving it. WP:IAR is not an excuse to go against consensus. If, in the future, consensus evolves to the point where it supports renaming the article, and if, at that point, an editor were to claim that "we cannot rename the article due to WP:COMMONNAME," then WP:IAR could be used to justify going against WP:COMMONNAME. But first, before WP:IAR could even come into play, you would need to achieve consensus on the idea that the proposal would actually improve the article. Phlar (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a fair point regarding consensus and WP:AIR, but I have read the "support" arguments, and none of them have convinced me that any of the other states mentioned (U.S., Australia, etc) are in any way analogous to the situation of the ROC vis-a-vis Taiwan; those other states did not originate from some successor state (the ROC succeeding the Qing Dynasty) that covered a much larger territory until it lost a civil war and retreated to an island that was stolen from it more than 50 years earlier. That said, the problem for me is: A) the article about the state and its territory is not likely to be moved until reunification / some other change in status; B) it is not logical to cover all relevant aspects of the territory (geography, cuisine, etc.) without including a historical context (e.g. the Austronesian-origin Gaoshan people/aboriginals who were there before the Qing Dynasty, never mind the ROC). CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. This proposal is a WP:snowball, I’m moving on to other topics. Phlar (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Be careful of your wording. It's inappropriate to assert that Japan stole the island. Note that the island was acquired by Japan through a legal treaty and formally became Japanese territory, and that was recognized internationally. On the contrary, since 1945, neither Chinas have acquired the island through any legal means that is recognized internationally. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

Change Taiwan to a country instead of a state. Stating it as a state is not neutral enough and biased against Chinese government beliefs as there are still many conflicts being resolved about Taiwan's status as a country or a state. Samuel40791765 (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish consensus first for such a change. But be aware this was recently discussed at length – see Talk:Taiwan/Archive 27#The lack of reliable sources for "state" – and the current wording was the outcome of that discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2018

50.198.234.201 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)It is a country in East Asia.

 Not done Already there, the encyclopedia just uses the more universal term, state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)