Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Discussion

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Naming conventions. --Ideogram 02:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "Taiwan"

Should the definition of Taiwan under the Political NPOV section be expanded to cover geographically affiliated small islands of the main island of Taiwan, e.g. Green Island, Orchid Island and the Pescadores? — Instantnood 17:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan has multiple meanings. It can mean the island, it can mean the ROC. SchmuckyTheCat 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about whether Taiwan should mean the island of Taiwan or the ROC. What we have to do is to figure out whether or not the meaning of Taiwan under that section covers Green Island, Orchid Island and the Pescadores. If yes the wordings have to be slightly modified accordingly to reflect this. — Instantnood 17:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes, not prescribes. We do not make up definitions. SchmuckyTheCat 17:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. If it describes, how should it describe Taiwan? Is Green Island, Orchid Island and the Pescadores described as part of Taiwan? — Instantnood 17:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Politically, administratively, and culturally, yes. Even more so than Kinmen and Matsu. -Loren 19:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and that's the reason why I brought the matter here. Unlike Orchid Island, Green Island, the Pescadores, etc., the islands on the Fujian coast and those in the South China Sea are, for many purposes, not considered to be part of Taiwan. Should the relevant text under the Political NPOV section be amended to reflect that Taiwan also covers Orchid Island, etc., not just the main island itself? — Instantnood 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (amended 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Stop reverting 'nood. You are restoring an argument from 2005 for X-sakes. Knock it off. SchmuckyTheCat 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Start a new thread to propose if you want to remove that sentence. This thread of discussion was not started to address your edit. If your edit was never discussed, it has to be reverted no matter when the edit was actually made. — Instantnood 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Whatever the circumstances were in 2005 if the edit has remained that way since with nobody else changing it then that is where the consensus is. SchmuckyTheCat 20:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To repeat, start a new thread to propose. This thread of discussion was not started to address the edit you have made. — Instantnood 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at the archives shows it was discussed, you just refused to accept the answer, as usual. So, knock it off with the revert warring. SchmuckyTheCat 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You did not propose at the talk page prior to your edit. If you want to know who's refusing to accept the answer - the fact was that the outcome did not justify your move (e.g. Jiang's remarks). To repeat, this thread of discussion was not started to address the edit you have made. Start a new thread if you want to discuss. — Instantnood 20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (modified 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Blah blah blah. How long do you hold grudges? It has stood for the years and nobody has "corrected" it as you seem to think needs doing. SchmuckyTheCat 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to read the whole thing above, but I think Taiwan has three meanings: Taiwan island, Taiwan Province, and the common name of the ROC. And out of the three, most people use Taiwan as the common name for ROC. In historical context, however, Taiwan is mostly referred to as Taiwan island.--Jerrypp772000 22:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The key issue is that whether or not Green Island, Orchid Island, the Pescadores, etc., should be considered to be part of Taiwan for the more specific (and more accurate and more neutral) usage.

I suppose the answer is pretty apparent. Yet to modify the NPOV guideline to reflect this, discussion is required. — Instantnood 23:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

They should.--Jerrypp772000 22:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll wait for two weeks and see if the proposal would be objected by the community. — Instantnood 23:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What proposal? SchmuckyTheCat 23:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pinyin article titles

I've seen an issue come up on a few articles where one editor wants the title of the article to use pinyin tone markers, and others do not. I'm referring to something like Běijīng vs. Beijing. The solution always seems to be to use the non-pinyin name, and redirect the pinyin name to that name. I agree with that, but I can't find anywhere that this policy is explicitly stated. Is there no consensus on this, or does it just need to be written down somewhere? --Danaman5 20:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is so obvious that we probably didn't even find it necessary to mention it here. In academic papers, books, print media, street signs, government publications, and everything else that is not a Chinese language textbook, pinyin is rendered without tones. Tones should only appear when the pinyin is set off in parenthesis next to characters to introduce a Chinese term. Otherwise, don't use tones.--Jiang 03:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Political names

I have been trying to start a discussion on this topic at WP:CHINA for over a month now. This section was never accepted by consensus and numerous attempts have been made to correct it but no one has been willing to discuss. Either discuss it or remove it. --Ideogram 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion above. Following WP principles, consensus must first be sought if text is to be blanked. Badagnani 06:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you see the link? To WP:CHINA? Did you see me link to the discussion earlier on this page under "Discussion"? Did you see me tag the section disputed? --Ideogram 06:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on blanking a large portion of the text of this page, as you did four times within a single hour without building, or even seeking consensus. Badagnani 06:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So you think it's better to leave it labeled NPOV without any attempts to resolve the issues for over a year? --Ideogram 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's ok for you to ignore my attempts to start discussion and jump in and revert three times when I try to do something about it? --Ideogram 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No editor is perfect, but at least we ("we" meaning conscientious editors) adhere to a minimum of discussing massive deletions, on talk page of the page in question, before they are done. Badagnani 07:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is completely pointless for us to argue about whether I tried to discuss this beforehand, unless you are only interested in proving that you are right about something. Right now you have the opportunity to discuss whether the disputed text should be a guideline, and yet for some reason you are not doing so. Do you have anything to say that is not a complete waste of time? --Ideogram 07:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, let me suggest you read the entire discussion I linked to above before posting something meaningless here again. At the very least it would prove that you are capable of reading before talking. --Ideogram 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try to refrain from personal attacks and rude behavior (your earlier cursing in edit summaries was very bad enough). Of course I have read that discussion but I simply do not agree with the blanket proposals to massively change article titles. We have done well on a case-by-case basis, relying on consensus and reasonableness. If you have a case for why you wish to blank many paragraphs of text in this particular article, please first attempt to build consensus here. In the meantime, have a cup of tea, undo your blanking, agree to refrain from attacking other editors, and we will discuss. Badagnani 07:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try to think and have a useful discussion before hitting the revert button. That text was marked NPOV for over a year. Did you read that? Nobody was discussing. Were you? Do you think it's ok for text marked NPOV to sit in the text where people can read it for over a year? --Ideogram 07:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the NPOV tag is a result of the SchmuckyTheCat vs. Instantnood edit war (see above, in the archives, in the page history, and a gazillion other pages)...something about the use of "mainland China". This is why there is no discussion. It has nothing to do with what has been more recently discussed at WP:CHINA.

I really don't see the justification here for a NPOV dispute, let alone justification for blanking the page (which is not sanctioned by official policy for resolving disputes like these). Can someone please elaborate on the specific points of dispute? (Proposals to have stuff changed is not justification for POV) --Jiang 08:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot more than that is objectionable Jiang, and it's not just about me and IN, you were involved as well, way back then. SchmuckyTheCat 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read the entire blanked text straight through, again. It is all eminently sensible, and I also fail to see what the problem with it is. While you're at it, Jiang, why not restore the text (I've used my three up for the day), and I suppose then we'll simply wait to hear what the editor's objections are. Lord knows I've asked enough times. Badagnani 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

ROC/Taiwan Naming Conventions (Here we go again...)

Guys, I think it's time we really got around to nailing down an acceptable version of the Naming Conventions for the Political NPOV section, as the nebulous definitions are leading to yet another disruptive edit war strecthing across multiple articles where editors seem to take offense at either "ROC" or "Taiwan" and have done blanket replacements which have led to completely POV or nonsensical edits. In the past, the general consensus was to reference official organs using their official titles (Republic of China Navy), while providing appropriate disambigs in the article intros; non-political articles took into account the general interchangibility of ROC and Taiwan in common usage, e.g. Culture of Taiwan, and used the common term under the understanding that a geographic area was being referenced, rather than some statement on policial status. I see no reason to change this arrangement, though I suspect some newer (or not so new) editors may have issues with this. So can we please decide on something? To sum up my suggestions: "President of the Republic of China", "Chien-Ming Wang was born in Tainan City, Taiwan...", "Culture of Taiwan", "Taipei City is the capital of the Republic of China..." -Loren 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As a starting point, consider the following usages taken from various articles (versions taken from most recent edit at time of posting), note the various usages of ROC vs. Taiwan. How would you write them?

Official organs and positions

• Republic of China Navy: "The Republic of China Navy is the maritime branch of the armed forces of the Republic of China, commonly referred to as Taiwan..."
• President of the Republic of China: "The President of the Republic of China is the head of state of the Republic of China (ROC).... Outside of Taiwan, the President of the Republic of China is usually informally referred to as the "President of Taiwan""

Comments

As these articles reference official bodies, the official titles should be used (ROC), along with relevant disambiguation on common usage (blah blah blah commonly referred to as...). Replacing ROC with Taiwan in the title is inappropriate here. -Loren 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Official title should be used for official things - and official title is Republic of China, not Taiwan, (Taiwan), or on Taiwan. --PalaceGuard008 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

People/Things (nonpolitical)

• Jay Chou: (from infobox) Origin Taiwan (Republic of China). "Jay Chou grew up in the small town of Linkou, Taiwan. Apparently showing sensitivity to music even as an infant, his mother took him to piano lessons at the age of 4."
• Chien-Ming Wang: "Chien-Ming Wang, born March 31, 1980 in Tainan City, Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan, is a starting pitcher for the New York Yankees in Major League Baseball."

Comments

In general, people reading articles of a nonpolitical nature could care less about the intricate details of Taiwan, the ROC, the PRC... etc. Things like "Tainan City, Republic of China" on an article of a baseball player are unnecessary, confusing, and not common usage. In this context, "Taiwan" references a geographic area. Users clicking on the link are directed to the Taiwan article which contains all the gory details there. -Loren 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A country (or "sovereign state" in this case, as TingMing claimed) is an abstract term created by political leaders with borders and all that. I believe that for no reason should we apply ROC onto birthplaces/locations of any person/thing, even if they are political figures/objects. Note that since it's infamously disputed for political reasons, "Taiwan" and "ROC" are being confused in most cases; it is not the same case as Germany, France, Spain, or any of the like. Even the United States is never used in an American person's birthplace, although for an explicitly different reason from the case of Taiwan. Therefore, although ROC currently governs Taiwan-minus-Taipei-City-and-Kaohsiung-City (they do not belong to Taiwan Province) and a few other places (like Kinmen and Matsu), the island is commonly called "Taiwan" to the degree that ROC cannot be grouped under the term "location" or "birthplace". It is especially absurd to refer a Taiwanese to be born in Tainan City, "Republic of China"/"Taiwan Province of ROC", and even a mention of ROC for birthplace (e.g. "ROC, commonly known as Taiwan")appears more or less awkward. Vic₂₂₆^說 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use the common name for the birthplace too.--Jerrypp772000 19:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with using the geographical name. And someone please get rid of those awful awful flags... --PalaceGuard008 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Places

• Taipei City: "Taipei City is the capital of the Republic of China. It is Taiwan's center of politics, commerce, mass media, education, and pop culture, and is considered to be one of the "Gamma world cities"."
• Taipei 101: "Taipei 101 is a 101-floor landmark skyscraper located in Taipei City, Taiwan, Republic of China."

Comments

Again, since the Taipei City article concerns a governmental division, the ROC is referenced. For the latter, I fail to see the point of plastering "Republic of China" after the common name of the location (or, as some editors have done, replacing "Taiwan" everywhere with "Republic of China", which is not common usage. -Loren 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Options for infoboxes or lists

1. Republic of China (Taiwan): pre-edit war consensus.
2. Taiwan (Republic of China)
3. Republic of China on Taiwan.
4. Republic of China
5. Taiwan (direct to article on geographic area)
6. Taiwan Province
7. Free Area of the Republic of China

Comment

I suggest using #1 for political listings, #2 for nonpolitical subjects. -Loren 07:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think No. 5 is more appropriate for non-political articles.--Jerrypp772000 21:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(tongue firmly in cheek, but semi-seriously) Why not just agree that "ROC" and "Taiwan" are used interchangeably in the real world and just leave it and beat over the head anyone who goes out of their way to rename/move/find-replace and otherwise edit war about it? SchmuckyTheCat 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That was what we were doing before, and while I preferred the flexibility that afforded, it apparently isn't enough to prevent massive edit wars from people who seem insistant on implementing their... ah... strongly held views on the nature of cross-Straits relations. It's kind of difficult for me to come down like a pile of bricks on edit warring parties without a concrete standard to point to. Accusing someone of being obtuse just doesn't seem to cut it. -Loren 22:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My main reason for using Taiwan is that using ROC is confusing to most of the Wikipedians and readers. Also, under current conventions, when alphabetizing countries, Taiwan (ROC) or ROC (Taiwan) should be listed under the letter T, I think we should still follow that.--Jerrypp772000 23:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to make your own judgements. Slow down, take a deep breath and think about it. There is no country called "Taiwan." The country governing Taiwan is still the Republic of China. Therefore, the official name prevails according to conventions. TingMing 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. The current conventions call for referring to the state by its formal name, but makes note of the fact that "Taiwan" is used interchangebly with ROC in common parlance. For nonpolitical articles linking to Taiwan as a geographic area has been accepted usage in the past as it makes no judgements on legitimacy/political status. Taiwan is an island located in East Asia east of Mainland China, south of Japan and north of the Philippines. All other political details are relegated to their respective articles. -Loren 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your first sentence makes your message less of an attempt for discussion; it sounds like you are ready for a debate which is not the case in here. We use "Taiwan" not because we think Taiwan is the name for the country, but because it is a more commonly used term than ROC is. Also, conventions plays absolutely no parts here since 1) it has been tagged by two neutrality-disputed templates; 2) we are still working for a more concrete one right here, right now; 3) ... haven't I said the same thing as above to you before? Vic₂₂₆^說 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest number 4 most of the time. However, number 3 should work for other instances when Taiwan becomes necessary. Official divisions should follow Taiwan Province, the Republic of China. Number 7 can also be used in some instances as well. TingMing 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about the usage of ROC in political context although it might confuse a lot of people. The point is, non-political articles should stay non-political, that is, we should use Taiwan. Taiwan is the only term that can be political and non-political at the same time. ROC is almost always political.--Jerrypp772000 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd support Loren's idea of using #1 for political subjects, and #2 for non-political. It strikes a good balance between the official name (as TingMing wants), and the colloquial name (like Jerry wants). People can see both, and can discern the difference between the ROC and the PRC. Whatever the decision, this nit-picking edit war needs to stop. (Sorry Jerry - accidentally overwrote your comments - Doh!) --Folic Acid 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of putting the official name in a non-political article. Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of people who don't know the difference between ROC and PRC.--Jerrypp772000 00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For me it depends upon the usage. "So and so was born in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan" works fine for me since that's common usage. For infoboxes where place of origin is requested Taiwan ROC seems to be a better compromise. -Loren 00:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, Taiwan can be used interchangeably with ROC, even in political articles. There are very few instances where this is the wrong thing to do, and in most cases it is the most understood thing. This POV won't gain much traction, and I don't currently apply it. (in fact, I try to stay away from Taiwan naming disputes). SchmuckyTheCat 00:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I try to avoid them as well, which is possibly one reason why the latest one spun out of hand. -Loren 00:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The official name and the real name should still hold sway. I would suggest Republic of China on Taiwan when you need that clarification. Jerry, why are you so scared that people don't understand what the difference is between the PRC and ROC? That is why Wikipedia is here, because it is one of the few sources they can actually know the Republic of China and the differences about China. Having Republic of China (Taiwan) is wrong. Having Taiwan (Republic of China) is even more offensive and wrong than the first. They are not equal to each other at all. You can occasionally use Taiwan, but Republic of China still hold sway over Taiwan. Having paranthesis is equating ROC to Taiwan. That is completely wrong. Taiwan is merely one of the 35 provinces of the ROC. Now, one of two provinces. Bottom line, I would agree with Republic of China on Taiwan. Never Republic of China (Taiwan) or Taiwan (Republic of China). TingMing 00:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If I had to, I would go with Loren's proposal.--Jerrypp772000 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That using the parentheses would equate ROC to Taiwan is your own opinion. At least nobody else in here has felt the same way yet. Also, please refrain from making personal remarks on others, as it is against the WP:NPA and/or WP:AGF. Vic₂₂₆^說 04:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If we look at the pages for the Koreas (two states with a territorial dispute), we can see that the official name of the polity is rarely cited in favor of the common name. North Korea and South Korea are almost universally used in place of The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) and The Republic of Korea (ROK). Here, in Taiwan, we rarely use "The Republic of China" except for official documents and a some political speeches...and even then, Taiwan is more common in stump speeches. The KMT used several English names for its polity during martial law, including: Free China, The Republic of China on Taiwan, The R.O.C. (Taipei)...etc. Moreover, the term "Mainland" was purposely affixed before China as a matter of KMT propaganda (Rawnsley, 2000 & p.20-28). So I guess it all depends on how you want to politicize it ;)Maowang 01:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rawnsley. Gary D.2000. Taiwan's Informal Diplomacy and Propaganda. London, UK. Macmillan Press Ltd.

The country's name is still the Republic of China. Why cant Jerry and others follow it? That is the correct way. I think Republic of China on Taiwan works perfectly if need be. Republic of China (Taiwan) equates ROC to Taiwan which is not true. What about Fujian province of the Republic of China? Republic of China (government/country) on (based) Taiwan (since 1949).That is how I decipher it. Republic of China (Taiwan) [Republic of China= Taiwan]. That is completely perposterous and wrong. TingMing 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Including Taiwan in parentheses refers to common usage as understood in the west. No one is asserting whether the ROC is or isn't the same as Taiwan, which is a whole other

can of worms. BTW, I did look inside my passport. The country code was TWN and the cover said REPUBLIC OF CHINA TAIWAN. -Loren 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You checked the wrong place. Check in the Nationality Field. The new passports have Republic of China, way underneath that, you find Taiwan. TingMing 05:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is unrelated to the point that I am making. My point is that regardless of what you or I think the ROC is, ROC and Taiwan are commonly used interchangebly in the English-speaking world to refer to that thing in the Pacific Ocean at around 23°46′N, 121°0′E and other things related to/located on/coming from it. This is the crux of the arguement why we would include disambiguation in parentheses, and why it makes sense to use either "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" in various articles depending upon the context. No one is arguing what the ROC is, the point is how it is generally referred to in common speech, which again, varies depending on the context. -Loren 16:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Loren. While nobody is (as far as I know) challenging the official name of the state, we're acknowledging the common usage of the word "Taiwan" to refer to what is officially known as the Republic of China. Nobody is ignoring Kinmen, Matsu, Penghu, or the rest. Saying "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is not a political statement (at least, it's not for me) - in my opinion, it's an attempt to both differentiate the PRC from the ROC, and to acknowledge that most of the world calls the ROC "Taiwan" anyway. It's similar to people calling the "United States of America" simply "America." Nobody's claiming that the US has jurisdiction over the whole North American continent - that's just what people call it. So, for what it's worth, I reiterate my support for the use of #1 and #2. --Folic Acid 01:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to your local retail store and find a box from Taiwan (policy in retail requires products to be identified where they were made), it says "Made in Taiwan", ones made in PRC say "Made in China". Taiwan should be used for geographical references, like saying a person was born there, or a building is located there. i.e. Place, Taiwan. For political articles, I honestly have no concrete opinion. --Borgarde^talk`

I agree with Borgarde. And for political articles, I would prefer using ROC (Taiwan), as ROC alone might cause confusion.--Jerrypp772000 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, many government website of the ROC now have headings like Executive Yuan of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Just providing an example of the usage of that term.--Jerrypp772000 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jerry. Taiwan for geographic/non-political things. For political matters, "Republic of China (Taiwan). John Smith's 22:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on which government website you go to. If you go to others like the Legislative Yuan, it still says R.O.C. And in Chinese sites, they have Republic of China exclusively 中華民國. And when the Kuomintang returns to power in 2008, those sites will be changed. TingMing 05:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid politicking comments. They polarize the discussion and we are trying to come together. SchmuckyTheCat 06:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No political crystal ball here, please. That isn't related to the *current* discussion at all. Vic₂₂₆^說 06:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing, unfortunately for you, "nationalism" is considered seriously POV by Wikipedia standards. This requires contribitors to step back from their political agendas and work with all sides in mind. Based on your prior post, I feel you are trying to push a particular political agenda, and therefore, do not have the best interests of the community in mind. You have also biased yourself in the eyes of this community. How can we feel you are acting in good faith if we think you are working from the opinion of one nationalist POV. If I were to see any post from you, I would be suspicious you are trying to advance Chinese nationalist POV and be more inclined to object. This is how edit wars get started... by editors trying to manipulate Wikipedia to achieve a POV ends. Your campaigning and POV are not welcome. Find the courage and maturity to understand what your POV is, and then leave it out of this community.Thx!Maowang 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You shold tell the Deep Green users on Wikipedia and not tell me. They object to everything, but they have to accept the Republic of China as a reality, whether they like it or not. It truly exists. TingMing 03:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(Duplicated from User talk:TingMing) Again, the objection is not your personal POV, but how you are conducting yourself. Edits such as this one where you delete POVs you disapprove of are unacceptable, especially on an article whose purpose is to describe all of the opposing POVs. Please take a step back, calm down, and realize that everyone has their own perception of the way things should be, especially on political topics which are extremely subjective. It is not our job on Wikipedia to decide which one is right, who owns Taiwan, should rule China, and whether current language norms are politically correct. All we seek is what is verifiable from reliable sources. The arguments you deleted on Legal status of Taiwan are verifiable as having come from PRC sources and indicative of PRC policy. It does not matter whether you or I consider them to be correct, the purpose of the article is to illustrate the varying viewpoints held by all involved parties. -Loren 03:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

By reverting my comment about your request, it does not appear that you are trying to engage in a constructive discussion at all. Therefore you cannot blame on us, saying that we are being Pan Green/TIers and not trying to discuss with you, either. Vic₂₂₆^說 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, TingMing... nationalist arguments are not productive... so take the high road. Nationalism is a type of faith and the only thing real about it is how it motivates people to behave. You obviously have your faith and that is fine... just don't try to push it on the community. Just because someone else does it, does not give you the right to. Blaming others is not the solution. The ROC is just another imagined community, that is imagined by different people in different ways, and sometimes not imagined at all.Find a way to understand there are other beliefs and work with them.Maowang 03:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If that were the case, TingMing, then we all (who have been going against your POVs) would as well be Pan-Green TIers, and maybe it would be a good reason for you to leave Wikipedia since it's been occupied by us. Oh wait, that's not the case. I'm a dummy in politics. Anyway, why don't you stop your behavior of assuming bad faith on anyone who goes against your POV and have a more peaceful discussion? You look like you are still trying to defend your own position and refuse to acknowledge the validity of POVs from others. Too bad this is not a place to comment on contributors. Not in anywhere in Wikipedia, actually. Here's a rub: your "facts" are considered false by your so-called "Pan-Green editors" who hold their own POVs against you. Therefore, the purpose of this discussion is to come up with a consensus satisfactory to both sides, not solely to your own Nationalism. No, Nationalism equals to fact only to those who deeply believe in it. Vic₂₂₆^說 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Republic of China or Republic of China] (Taiwan) for political or official issues, and just Taiwan for geographical things. For example, birthplaces should be fine with just "Taiwan". But say, "national flower" should be Republic of China, not Taiwan, because that's the name of the regime. --PalaceGuard008 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines

Getting back to the subject at hand, I think it's probably a little idealistic to differentiate between "political subjects" and "non-political subjects" when determining which name to use, since the whole question of "Taiwan" vs. "Republic of China" vs. "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is inherently political. I think that if it were left up to me, I'd follow the following criteria for determining which name to use in which situation:

Republic of China or ROC	Either Republic of China (Taiwan) or Taiwan (Republic of China)	Taiwan	Taiwan Province
When specifying official titles (eg. President of the Republic of China) When giving the names of official state organs (eg. Republic of China Navy) When referring to the pre-1949 Republic as it existed on Mainland China. When referring to the state in article space after appropriate disambiguation has been given (Do not replace all instances of "Republic of China" with "Republic of China (Taiwan)" unless explicitly part of the official title.).	When identifying the state and attempting to differentiate it from the PRC (eg. "Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan).") In general, this only needs to be done once, subsequent references to the ROC need not include "(Taiwan)". Exceptions can be made if there is a very long separation between mentions of the ROC. When identifying the state in a general, non-specific way (eg. "The American Institute in Taiwan serves as the de facto embassy of the United States to the Republic of China (Taiwan).") When providing disambiguation in articles with Republic of China in their titles, though generally this only needs to be done once (eg. The Republic of China Navy is the maritime branch of the armed forces of the Republic of China (Taiwan)) When identifying nationality or origin (eg. "Lee Teng-hui is a citizen of the Republic of China (Taiwan).") When identifying a location outside the island of Taiwan (eg. "Magong City is the capital of Penghu County, Taiwan (Republic of China).")	When identifying a geographic location on the island of Taiwan (eg. "Kaohsiung is a large city on the southern coast of Taiwan.") When identifying a birthplace in the context of a geographical location (eg. "Lee Teng-hui was born in Sanchih, Taipei County, Taiwan.") When referring to an article or subject specific to the island of Taiwan (eg. Culture of Taiwan, Rail transport in Taiwan)	When identifying a subject directly related to the province (eg. James Soong was the governor of the Taiwan Province) When giving the names of official government organs (eg. Taiwan Provincial Assembly) When referring to a specific location within the formal administrative hierarchy (eg. Sanchih Township is administered as part of Taipei County, Taiwan Province, Republic of China).

It's not elegant, but hopefully it allows for everyone's concerns to be taken into consideration.

Thoughts? --Folic Acid 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I don't like the term Taiwan, ROC. I think Taiwan alone would be good enough.--Jerrypp772000 18:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(Whoops - edit conflict) Just curious - why don't you like having ROC there? I thought there probably would be times when you would want to include it, such as in the example given - Lee's birthplace goes from very specific to very general. In any case, what do you think about the rest? It would be nice if we could figure out what specific objections there are and address them, so that we could achieve some sort of consensus. --Folic Acid 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for organizing the proposals. I'm in general agreement, though I'd like to bring up a few points:

1. "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is intended as a disambiguation regarding the state (unless part of the official title of some organization). Therefore, it is generally only necessary to include "Taiwan" in parentheses the first time such identitification takes place. Subsequent references to the state in the same article or section (for longer articles) can just use ROC or Republic of China.

2. Birthplaces are a bit tricker. I am inclined to simply refer to the geographic area in question as it avoids all state related questions all together (e.g. what to do with figures born before 1945). As the Taiwan article pertains only to the geographic region, I don't see any conflict. Of course, nationality should still reference the ROC with appropriate disambig if nessecary. See the Jay Chou article for an example of the usage I prefer: Origin in the infobox gives Taiwan (Republic of China), while the first line of the bio states that "Jay Chou grew up in the small town of Linkou, Taiwan".

3. Technically speaking, Penghu County is generally lumped in with Taiwan politically (part of Taiwan Province), and culturally. A better question might be what to do with Kinmen and Matsu. (Kinmen, Republic of China?)-Loren 19:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In response:

• I can concede #1.
• For #2, it's a fair point, and I'll concede that too - birthplace and geographic location are obviously virtually the same thing, so limiting a birthplace reference to a geographic location (Taiwan vs. Taiwan, ROC) is fine with me.
• 3 is tricky - I understand that Penghu County is considered part of Taiwan Province and that Kinmen and Matsu are different, but I guess I'd respond by saying that trying to capture in a name the subtle nuances of territories and their political administration and alignment is going to be maddening. Instead, I'd suggest that if people read an article that mentions Kinmen, Matsu, Penghu, or the like, they'd certainly be able to follow the links to those respective pages, where they'd (hopefully) be able to explore the political and administrative statuses of those places, and delve more deeply into the nuances of their relationship to the ROC. Basically, while I understand your point in #3, Loren, I don't really think we can sufficiently describe in a name the intricacies of the politics of the ROC and its political divisions. --Folic Acid 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You do have a good point in your response to #3, which after some thought, I agree with. Is it alright if I modify the table above to show what we've compromised on so far, so other editors can weigh in? -Loren 19:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course - please feel free. EDIT: Actually, I have a question about #2. With regard to nationality, I was trying to address the disagreement that [User:TingMing] seems to have over what's displayed in the nationality field in an infobox (as in Su Tseng-chang). Did you envision leaving "Republic of China" in that field, or did you feel comfortable changing thoe to "Republic of China (Taiwan)"? --Folic Acid 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're talking nationality then that's fundamentally state related so ROC should be in there, though Taiwan should also be included somehow as disambiguation from that other China and due to the fact that it's simply common usage. -Loren 20:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I find Taiwan, Republic of China misleading. Can you change it into Taiwan (Republic of China) or something like that?--Jerrypp772000 20:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is very good for me.--Jerrypp772000 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I like the look of this list. --Folic Acid 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice on the page President of the Republic of China, it says that it is commonly known as the President of Taiwan out side of the ROC. Although the official title is still the President of the ROC, wouldn't it be appropriate to have a sentence like this: He is the President of the Republic of China (Taiwan)?--Jerrypp772000 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case you mentioned disambiguation has already been done in the first sentence so I don't think it is nessecary to add "(Taiwan)" since it's not part of the official title. What we're working on here are guidelines, not ironclad rules. As always, some flexibility and common sense should be applied. -Loren 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. John Smith's 23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed my major objection by adding one word "either" on the chart. If you don't like it, revert the chart and strike this statement. If made into the guideline, the examples in column two should deliberately be a mixture of "Taiwan (Republic of China)" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to show non-preference and interchangeability for the name. SchmuckyTheCat 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. --Folic Acid 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. -Loren 23:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work!

On most incoming mail I see "Taiwan (ROC)" listed as the destination. Maowang 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it seems like we've arrived at a mostly stable version of the guidelines. I'm going to leave it up for a few more days for people to comment/make suggestions on. Thanks to everyone who's participated thusfar! -Loren 01:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreement at all. This is like an agreement between friends. There has been no input from anyone with any "pan-blue" views or what not. It is just green, not referring to anyone. I completely object to the second column with Republic of China (Taiwan). It does not seem right at all. The third column is nearly fine. It should be Lee Teng-hui was born in Sanchi, Taiwan Province, Republic of China. That is the correct political administrative division designation. Just like Bill Clinton was born in Little Rock, Arkansas (State), United States of America. It is unquestionable that Taiwan is still administered as a province. Until the ROC government changes that, Wikipedia should not set up guidlines for them. I recommend Republic of China on Taiwan for the second column. TingMing 00:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't green or blue. It reflects the reality of how people in the real world (meaning: outside of Taiwan politics) use and understand the phrases.

And, to be honest, from my understanding of green/blue and Taiwan politics, I'd say Wikipedia's coverage leans blue. SchmuckyTheCat 01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's odd - I didn't realize that as an American (with no link to Taiwan at all), I could be either "pan-blue" or "green." In any case, [User:TingMing], as I understand it, we're not trying to limit ourselves only to the precise official names for things, but are trying to reach a consensus that we can all (or most all) agree on. To quote myself in a response to Loren (I know, it's bad form) while I understand your point . . . I don't really think we can (or should try to) sufficiently describe in a name the intricacies of the politics of the ROC and its political divisions. I understand that you have strongly held views on Taiwan's political status, heritage, and so on - I respect that. However, what you (and the rest of us) have to realize is that there are wildly different views, especially on subjects like this, and they all have to be respected. What we're trying to do with this set of guidelines is achieve consensus between the pan-blues, pan-greens, and outsiders (like me), so that we can have a good set of articles that reflects the common understanding of what Taiwan is, what the ROC is, and how the state and its people relate to the PRC, to Chinese heritage, to history, and to the rest of the world. So, I'm urging you to take these guidelines in the spirit in which they were given - one of consensus and compromise. --Folic Acid 15:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no general objections, but have a couple suggestions: 1) I think we can be more clear by using "Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan" instead of "Republic of China (Taiwan)" if we are not editing in a box or template and space is not an issue. 2) Taiwan should be delinked in instances where it is not immediately relevant and serves merely as a disambiguator e.g. "Navy of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" versus instances identifying the Republic of China in a general, non-specific way. 3) Should we include a column describing use of "Taiwan Province"? That seems to be a point of contention. --Jiang 01:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Sounds reasonable to me.

2) I have no problems with that, my only concern is that someone might either link it, or remove it.

3) Regarding Taiwan Province, my suggestion would be to use it when explicitly referring to the administrative division as it exists under the ROC, while maintaining a clear seperation between that and the geographical region (the Island of Taiwan). eg. "Taipei County is located in northern Taiwan and encircles Taipei City. It is south of Keelung, north of Taoyuan County and west of Yilan. Its abbreviation in Taiwanese is Pak-koān and in Mandarin is Bei Xian (北縣). It is administered as part of Taiwan Province of the Republic of China.". -Loren 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Loren's suggestions. I'd be fine with adding a Taiwan Province column, if it's made clear when such usage is appropriate. If the guidelines are too vague, we run the risk of not really solving any problems at all - the interpretation of what's proper would just be left up to the individual. --Folic Acid 15:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I forgot. But the capital of the Republic of China is at Taipei City. It should NOT be Taipei City is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan). That is completely misleading even more. Taiwan Province's capital is at Chunghsing New Village in central Taiwan in Nantou County. Taipei is only the capital of the Republic of China. That unnecessary (Taiwan) creates more confusion. TingMing 01:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(Taiwan) does not mean Taiwan Province, it serves as the common name for the ROC. So it's actually not that confusing.--Jerrypp772000 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Using "Taiwan Province" to refer explicitly to the administrative entity seems uncontroversial "Taichung is a provincial city of Taiwan Province, Republic of China", but we need to decide whether it is permissible to use it refer to administrative hierarchy "He was born in Taichung City, Taiwan Province, Republic of China"--Jiang 02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it all depends on context. If we're talking, say, someone's birthplace, then it seems less contraversial to just go with the geographical location. If the article is explicitly on an administrative division, eg. Taipei County, then it makes sense to include the administrative hierarchy somewhere. -Loren 02:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Even in those boxes, you should include Taichung City, Taiwan, Republic of China. Taipei is still the capital only of the Republic of China. So you cannot add (Taiwan) behind it. It is completely unacceptable. TingMing 03:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is (Taiwan) unacceptable?--Jerrypp772000 15:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan has its own capital at Chunghsing New Village in Nantou. The capital of the Republic of China is Taipei. TingMing 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant Taiwan Province. Taiwan can mean other things, not only Taiwan Province.--Jerrypp772000 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose when we are writing, for example, one's place of birth in an address style, we can write "[[Tamsui]], [[Taipei County]], [[Taiwan Province]], [[Republic of China]]". When we are writing something about politics or economy of the modern times polity, "[[Republic of China]] (Taiwan)" will do. For matters that are only marginally political, such as a list of television channels, then it's better to go with "Taiwan ([[Republic of China]])". For those that purely have nothing to do with politics or with the modern times polity, such as the aboriginal languages, simply "[[Taiwan]]" will do. We should all bear in mind about the renaming issues in recent years brought about by the DPP government, which is far from neutral point of view. Michael G. Davis 14:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think one's birthplace should not include the ROC.--Jerrypp772000 16:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY, the DPP's point of view is FAR from neutral. Republic of China on Taiwan will due. Or in some cases, Taiwan, ROC or Taiwan, Republic of China. TingMing 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was what Michael G. Davis was saying. You seem to have a pattern of completely ignoring everything said which does not agree with your own personal POV, or simply claiming your opponents are "TIers". Let me requote the relevent part of Michael's comment which you so conveniently ignored: when we are writing, for example, one's place of birth in an address style, we can write "[[Tamsui]], [[Taipei County]], [[Taiwan Province]], [[Republic of China]]". When we are writing something about politics or economy of the modern times polity, "[[Republic of China]] (Taiwan)" will do. For matters that are only marginally political, such as a list of television channels, then it's better to go with "Taiwan ([[Republic of China]])". For those that purely have nothing to do with politics or with the modern times polity, such as the aboriginal languages, simply "[[Taiwan]]" will do. Again, you seem to be the only one who has a problem with using anything other than plastering "Republic of China" everywhere. -Loren 00:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Michael G. Davis.

Actually, what is the Wikipedia-wide convention on listing birthplaces? I seem to be finding that historical flags are being used to denote the political entity that existed at the time of birth. Someone like Lee Teng-hui would be born in the Empire of Japan, not the Republic of China.--Jiang 01:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When the time Lee Teng-hui was born, Taiwan wasn't yet fully integrated into the Japanese proper. Michael G. Davis 23:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed that some people would like to plaster "TAIWAN" everywhere. And add "ROC" only once, but TAIWAN is still next to ROC. TingMing 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What?--Jerrypp772000 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest you reread the above discussion? No one is proposing what you are claiming. If anything, people have agreed that ROC is the name of the state and the "(Taiwan)" is intended only as disambiguation to be used once or when in other articles where space does not permit. -Loren 01:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing, PLEASE, stop dragging politics into this. I don't see anyone representing a particular political party here "DPP"(?). You have conflated all opposition to your POV into a political debate between DPP and KMT. You really seem to be trying to displace some kind of abstract anger and anxiety over Taiwan's experience under the DPP and insert it into this community. You might want to read some of the literature by the writer 朱天心. Many of her stories after 1989 deal with the anxiety many people who identify with the KMT ideology feel about a changing Taiwan and their feeling of loss and home. This may provide a perspective and an outlet to deal with your feelings. I highly suggest Ancient Capital 古都(1997) and Remembering My Brothers in the Military Village 想我眷村的兄弟們(1992).

In relation to the topic...Really,look at the North Korea and South Korea model.Maowang 13:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Maowang, and I heartily concur.

TingMing, while I'll be the first to defend your right to hold views that might not be the same as everyone else's, I will also be the first to everyone else's rights to their views too. This discussion and the whole purpose of Wikipedia in general is not to determine who's POV is right or wrong in a controversy - see WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE - but rather is to achieve consensus on issues such as these. The fact that you strongly believe your POV is admirable, but is not relevant to our discussion. I'd respectfully suggest that if you want to be taken seriously, you should engage in good-faith discussion with everyone else, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks and pointless bickering. --Folic Acid 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If it is any help, I was just reading how the name "Taiwan" without any provincial connotation has been used in general terms by the academic community since the mid-1970's. In 1976, Academia Sinica started holding conferences on issues focusing on simply "Taiwan". Most foreign articles replaced "ROC" with "Taiwan"around 1976. This can be found on Page 6 of Legitimacy, Meaning and Knowledge in the Making of Taiwanese Identity by Mark Harrison. Harrison also details the act of naming and naming protocol. You can probably go onto Amazon and look inside the first 10 pages to get a little help with the naming protocol for this issue.Maowang 02:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the first chapter of the book [1], the author began with talking about the Pacific islanders who populates the island, the history that Qing ceded the island to Japan, creation of modern health and education systems under Japanese rule, the retrocession in 1945, the February 28 uprising, all these are unrelated to the islands of Kinmen and Matsu, which are also part of the present Republic of China. In what way is the author replacing "ROC" with "Taiwan"? Michael G. Davis 23:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the first chapter of the book is about. It is about naming and the links between names, power and identity.

Wrapping this up

We've let this sit for a few days, and save TingMing's objections, we all seem to be mostly in agreement about the structure, style, and applicability of the naming conventions. Is there any further discussion? Does anything else need to be added/deleted/moved? --Folic Acid 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not opening up a whole new (or many new) can(s) of worms, but please do keep in the back of your minds how to extend these naming conventions to article names, category names and structure, and the same issues for China/PRC related articles. --Ideogram 20:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We might want to take Jiang's suggestion and add a column on usage of Taiwan Province. -Loren 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Would anyone else like to take a stab at it? I'm sure there are those that are more knowledgeable than I about when a referral to Taiwan Province would be preferable to other terms. --Folic Acid 02:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit swamped to do in-depth work, will try to get around to it in a few days if no one else does. -Loren 02:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I won't be able to get to it before next week at the earliest. --Folic Acid 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan Province usage

I added a bullet, tell me what you think.--Jerry 23:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. -Loren 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly object. Taiwan Province is part of the Republic of China's administrative hiearchy. Thus, it needs to be included whenever you say for example: Tamshui Township, Taipei County, Taiwan Province, the Republic of China. But for Taipei City, you can just use: Taipei City, Taiwan, Republic of China. TingMing 01:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan, ROC seems misleading. Taiwan is used as a geographic location or the common name of the ROC, ROC on the other hand is used as the official administrative government.--Jerry 01:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good Jerry. Ting, trying to capture the entirety of Taiwan's various political divisions in every single name that we use is incredibly awkward, and is just silly. I think Jerry's entry on when to use "Taiwan Province" is excellent - it captures when one wants to distinguish Taiwan Province from other provinces. --Folic Acid 02:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How in the hell can Taiwan, ROC be misleading. That is the official administrative hierchy. Also, government websites and other address systems use that. You send a letter to Taiwan, ROC Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China. I hoped I didn't blow up your bubble. TingMing 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Taiwan" is common usage, referring to the geographical area. "Taiwan Province" is rarely used nowadays since the freezing of the provincial government in 1998. Second, might I direct you to some actual government websites?

1. Legislative Yuan: "1st ChungSan S. Road, Jhongjheng District, Taipei, 10051, Taiwan , R.O.C"

2. Taipei County: "No.161, Sec. 1, Jhongshan Rd., Banciao City, Taipei County 220, Taiwan (R.O.C.)"

3. Taichung City: "99, MinQuan Rd., West District, Taichung City 403, Taiwan (R.O.C.)"

I might also add that all 3 bodies are pan-Blue dominated, and the two latter ones are administratively Taiwan Province. Finally, that type of language you just used is uncalled for -Loren 02:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said. --Folic Acid 02:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What the actual problem is to you right now is that you seem unable to put yourself in others' shoes and project their own viewpoints regarding this issue. Sure, you understand the exact meaning of "Taiwan, ROC", but others might not understand it since 1) "Taiwan" has always been used as a common name for ROC, but it never equates Taiwan to ROC because of that (and that does not make those who refer ROC as Taiwan TI-ers since they could care less about politics); 2) adding ROC on Taiwan is like adding USA on Minnesota or other states: just awkward; 3) like the first one, ROC is relatively less common in usage compared to Taiwan. Per the above, if you wish to let the readers understand the difference between Taiwan and ROC, the articles Taiwan and Republic of China has it all if they are ever interested. Vic₂₂₆^說 03:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Republic of China has not "always" been known as Taiwan. That is completely wrong. Back in the Cold War, it was known as the Republic of China, Nationalist China, or Free China. The "Taiwan" has only been very recent. A few years after Lee Teng-hui took office. Taiwan, ROC is correct. TingMing 03:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the www.president.gov.tw and the Pingtung, Kaohsuing, and Nantou County Governments. They are all Pro-DPP Green. They still have Taiwan, R.O.C. because that is the correct form. TingMing 03:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet you have spent the last couple of weeks disputing that very usage [2]. Bringing this back to the original point, notice that none of these sites refers to a "Taiwan Province" in their mailing addresses. To repeat for the n-th time, common usage in English simply refers to the geographic region of Taiwan interchangebly with the governing state (the ROC). So far, you are the only person who seems to equate "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (ROC)" with TI, when it has been repeated numerous times that the point is disambiguation for what passes as common usage in the English speaking world. I might add that the current proposed usage is even more conservative than what passes for common usage, when the government of Lienchiang County (hardly a bastion of DPP support) gives it's address as "Lienchiang County 209, Taiwan (ROC)" [3]. -Loren 06:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

When the ROC is definitely used. It should be Republic of China. No doubt about that. REPUBLIC OF CHINA only. But for example if Taiwan is used you might want to add Taiwan, R.O.C. Notice the comma and notice that there are NO parenthesis. I don't oppose Taiwan, R.O.C. but I oppose Taiwan (ROC). TingMing 07:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're the only one who seems to make that connection. I have provided no less than three examples of local governments using ROC in parentheses which are pan-Blue dominated, even in cases when they should strictly be part of Taiwan Province or Fujian Province administratively. Before you accuse other editors of pushing TI, perhaps you should consider why even KMT dominated administrations have no problems with this usage. -Loren 07:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense but websites don't really tell anything. They come and go. Its the cyber world for heaven's sake. Look at President of the Republic of China's site. He has President of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Does that mean that he changed his title ? NO, it has been merely altered oin the site and doesn't really do anything. Look here, I went to go get a business card from the speaker and mayor of Hsinchu City. It had Hsinchu City, Taiwan Province, the Republic of China. In CHINESE + ENGLISH. TingMing 00:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I met Dr. Joseph Wu and got his business card back when he was still Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council - it says "Mainland Affairs Council - Republic of China (Taiwan)" in both English and Chinese. --Folic Acid 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Those sites reflect commmon usage in English. Should common language norms change then our usage will change as well, but not before. This is unrelated to political advocacy (fun link pretty much conforming to the proposed guidelines), but simply a reflection of how people refer to these things in common English. No one is asserting whether the ROC is or isn't Taiwan and we don't endorse either POV. What is acknowledged is that the overall consensus that Taiwan is an island under the administration of a state known as the ROC, which claims it as a province. Hence the seperate articles for Taiwan and Taiwan Province. Whether the ROC is on/over/under/equal to/or part of Taiwan is left to the reader. We don't tell people what to think about controversial issues. We simply present the controversy. Please review the table above, no where does it try to equate Taiwan with the ROC... in fact, it explicitly discourages such inferences from being made when referencing the state outside of a disambiguation context.-Loren 00:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "CLAIM". The reality is it administers it as a province. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, the Republic of China. TingMing 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on, let's not get into this controversial issue again. We're coming up with the naming conventions. If you want to discuss about it, you're welcome to discuss it on my talkpage.--Jerry 00:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything is a claim. Every POV is a claim (including the one you just made). The PRC claims that Taiwan is a renegade province of the PRC (Land claim). We simply work with what's verifiable. What is verifiable is that the island of Taiwan is administered by a state called the ROC as a Taiwan Province which has been streamlined since 1998 and weilds no effective power -it's authority having been divested to the individual counties and municipalities classified as provincial level cities. What is verifiable is that ROC and Taiwan are used interchangebly in English making some type of disambiguation nessecary, external links show that this has been achieved through the use of these useful things called parentheses. What is verifiable is that Taiwan is an island and referring to it as a geographical location is generally not disputed in a geographical context. Is the ROC's control of Taiwan justified? some think it is, some think it isn't. Your view is one of several which are held. We don't take sides on who's right. I have repeated myself on this too many times and will not respond to further queries on this subject unless you have something new to add. -Loren 00:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Taiwan Provincial Government actually does have power. Although it has been streamlined, it still has some power. This is not a claim. This is the de facto status. THen why dont you say that Mainland China is a claim of the ROC and that we need to put disambiguation on all the PRC articles "The Republic of China continues to claim sovereignty over the PRC" Taiwan is a province of China, the ROC, no matter what. TingMing 02:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See China, Political status of Taiwan (The ROC government has in the past considered itself to be the sole legitimate government over China, as well as its former territories. This position started to be largely ignored in the early 1990s, changing to one that does not challenge the legitimacy of PRC rule over mainland China. However, the ROC's claims have never been renounced through a constitutional amendment; both the PRC and the ROC carry out cross-strait relations through specialized agencies (such as the Mainland Affairs Council of the ROC), rather than through foreign ministries. Different groups have different concepts of what the current formal political situation of Taiwan is.), and People's Republic of China (The PRC is involved in a long-running dispute over the political status of Taiwan. The CPC's rival during the Chinese Civil War, the Kuomintang (KMT), retreated to Taiwan and surrounding islands after its civil war defeat in 1949, and traditionally has claimed legitimacy over China and Mongolia while it is the ruling power of the Republic of China (ROC).). -Loren 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all fascinating, but this isn't a question of whether Taiwan Province is or isn't a legitimate or actual entity, whether it is or isn't actually powerful, to whom it belongs, who claims it as their territory, or anything else. We're talking about when to use the words "Taiwan Province" - to me, the answer seems clear, and Jerry's already laid it out. "Taiwan Province" should be used when referring to the actual province itself, and not to some other larger or smaller political entity. I do not think it should be used in the normal course of speaking of other placenames (Hsinchu City, Taiwan Province, Republic of China) simply because it appears on someone's business card. A standard name like that is long, awkward, unwieldy, confusing, and unhelpful. Remember, we're not striving for precision or a description of the various minutiae of Taiwan's and China's politics here - we're trying to write an informative general encyclopedia that people who don't know anything about Taiwan can read and understand what we're talking about. I agree with Loren - we've been over this ground many times before, and it's not a useful discussion to have again, especially in this context. I think we need to finalize this set of guidelines. --Folic Acid 03:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the central government agency. That doesn't apply here. We are talking about the provincial designations. Hsinchu City is in Taiwan Province. TingMing 00:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try to modify the chart above to make it the way you want it to be, and we'll discuss. Because I don't really get what your point is.--Jerry 00:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan Province should definitely be used for township, county, and all other administrative division articles. TingMing 03:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree.

I'd like to point out that everyone else has reached consensus. Quoting from Wikipedia:Consensus:

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.

The following description of consensus, from the mailing list, argues a difference between consensus and unanimity: In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.

There are a lot of people here who have very strong opinions one way or the other as to how to describe and characterize the ROC, Taiwan, and other things in particular instances. However, everyone's agreed to set those objections aside for the moment, so that we can try to come together and create out a framework that while it might not be exactly what we want, it's acceptable on some level. Or, at the very least, if it's unacceptable, we can accept that most others feel a certain way, and that we can "agree to disagree" in a friendly and cordial way. I understand, Ting, that you have very strong beliefs about what Taiwan and the ROC are and are not, and I respect that. However, what we're asking you to do is to also respect our beliefs and feelings, and to come to a consensus. We're not asking you to give up your beliefs, but in the interests of collegiality and expediency, accept the consensus opinion on the naming conventions. --Folic Acid 12:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What is so wrong with the City/County, State/Province, Country format? Nobody considers Kinmen County or Kaohsiung City to be part of Taiwan Province, and everybody knows Tainan County, for example, is part of the Taiwan Province. Michael G. Davis 23:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So why cant we use the above format stated by Davis? TingMing 22:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited it, what do you think now?--Jerry 22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Finalizing the naming conventions (redux)

I think the conventions look good as they are now. Do we need to do anything else before moving them to the main project page? --Folic Acid 13:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but Taiwan should be delinked where it serves to clarify "Republic of China" rather than to serve as a label in and by itself (as a geographical location), that is, where the reference is specifically to the political entity. The [[Republic of China Navy]] is the maritime branch of the armed forces of the [[Republic of China]] (Taiwan). The encourages people to click on the more relevant link over the less relevant one.--Jiang 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be unnecessary, but I guess it's alright.--Jerry 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, no objections here. -Loren 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. --Folic Acid 00:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no need to put so many Republic of China (Taiwan). Even worse: Taiwan (Republic of China). That one is completely unacceptable, wrong, and unfounded. I want to raise a point first. For administrative divisions such as Lee was born in Sanchih, Taipei County, Taiwan Province, Republic of China. I believe it should be like that. Or Taiwan, Republic of China if you so desire. Also, Penghu is inside Taiwan Province, just FYI. There should be no Taiwan (Republic of China). You can opt to put Republic of China (on Taiwan). for those ROC (Taiwan) ones that are above. TingMing 00:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could agree to put these on the project page by this Friday (4 June) at 22:00 (UTC)? --Folic Acid 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

never if no one addresses my concerns. TingMing 06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ting, we've tried to address your concerns till we're blue in the face. If by "addresses my concerns" you mean "capitulate to your POV," then it isn't going to happen. Unless I'm mistaken, what we have here now is a consensus opinion between several different people on how names should appear in various contexts. It doesn't please everyone, but everyone (but you) has agreed to set their own POVs aside and accept the consensus. There's any number of explanations from me and others here (and in other places) why we've settled on this set of guidelines, so please don't go asking for another explanation. We've also been having this discussion for months now, and you only saw fit to join (and start insisting on your own POV) at the very end. If you can't accept the consensus, I'm very sorry, but I think we'll have to move on without you. --Folic Acid 11:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The proposed guidelines already said the "Taiwan" in parenthesis is for clarification purposes, so there's not need to mention it more than once.

I think that if we're going to avoid the province label, we can avoid all other political labels: how's [[Sanchih]], [[Taipei County|Taipei]], [[Taiwan]] or [[Sanchih]], [[Taiwan]]?--Jiang 11:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I could live with that, Jiang - as you said, the use of "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is only for clarification, not to completely rename the country. It needn't be spelled out like that more than once. I don't think we want to avoid mention of Taiwan Province altogether (I'm not sure if that's what you meant) - I think the current proposal for the uses for "Taiwan Province" are appropriate. --Folic Acid 12:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not really what I meant. Personally, I'd prefer Sanjhih Township, Taipei County, Taiwan Province, Republic of China (note that none are redirects), especially for the Sanjhih Township article (to indicate administrative hierarchy) but not necessarily for someplace Lee Teng-hui infobox where space is limited. If we're going to be dealing with a string of political divisions (existing for administration's sake), why should we leave Taiwan out of the mix and have it only refer to a geographical entity? Either we're talking political divisions or we're talking mere places - not half of each. --Jiang 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Usage depends on the context. Certainly if we're writing an article on a specific location, eg. Sanjhih Township, then it will be appropriate to include the administrative hierarchy. However, for usage in a non-related article, eg. "so and so was born in so and so", then I think [[Sanchih]], [[Taipei County]], [[Taiwan]] or some similar varient thereof captures the relevent information, and is reflective of common usage. (example). -Loren 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then let's add a bullet point to the "Taiwan Province" column: "When indicating formal administrative hierarchy"--Jiang 12:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How's that? --Folic Acid 13:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So, any further changes? If not, perhaps we could move the final version to the project page today. --Folic Acid 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with it the way it stands. -Loren 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I'll put them up on the project page a little bit later.

It looks good, but I modified it just a little bit. Because I believe that the origin of a person is the birthplace (or even ancestry) of the person, not the nationality. I hope you all will agree.--Jerry 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

See the comments above for why "Taiwan" should not be linked. It only serves to clarify "Republic of China" rather than to serve as a label in and by itself (as a geographical location), that is, where the reference is specifically to the political entity. It is more neutral to use "[[Republic of China]] (Taiwan)". This encourages people to click on the more relevant link over the less relevant one. The current naming conventions states that "The former can be listed, depending on context, either as "[[Republic of China]] (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan ([[Republic of China]])"." We should not link to Republic of China (Taiwan) because that page is a disambiguation page. LionheartX

Alphabetization

And it said that it should be alphabetized under letter "T" before you changed it saying that it's more neutral, I don't think it is neutral at all. If ROC (Taiwan) and Taiwan (ROC) both link to ROC, then there won't be much of a problem.--Jerry 16:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(Taiwan) does not link to Taiwan, [[Taiwan (Republic of China)]] links to Republic of China, so I think that'll look better. And origin is the ancestry or birthplace of a person not the nationality.--Jerry 16:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is more neutral to alphabetize under the letter "C" since the PRC is also alphabetized under "C". See the article China, it covers both the PRC and the ROC. [[Taiwan (Republic of China)]] should not be used either because it is against official guidelines to link to redirects. Since the relevant article is located at Republic of China, that is the most neutral term to link to, unless there is consensus to move the article. As for "origin", using "[[Republic of China]] (Taiwan)" seems most neutral. The current naming convention states we should not only use the term "Taiwan" because it is imprecise and politically charged. Also, please gather consensus on the talk page before making controversial changes. LionheartX

My suggested solution: If you are talking about Taiwan, than it goes under "T". But if you are talking about the Republic of China, it goes under "C", even if you write "Republic of China (Taiwan)", because in the later, we are really talking about the ROC with "Taiwan" added to aid clueless individuals about the naming affair.--Huaiwei 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Alphabetizing ROC or Taiwan at C is a bad idea. No-one outside the KMT equates the ROC with "China" and people do not expect to find that information at China. POV covers multiple issues, and being neutral does not mean giving each side "equal" space (since the PRC is also alphabetized under C). We're here to describe from a neutral, external POV in a way convenient to readers, not to define, and tell them, how they should find information. SchmuckyTheCat

I agree with Schmucky, ROC/Taiwan articles should be alphabetized under T. --Ideogram 20:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Schmucky and Ideogram as well. Placing Taiwan/ROC under "C" is POV.--Jerry 20:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And placing the "Republic of China" under "T" is not POV (compared to say, placing "Taiwan" under "T")? I find it strange that we are seemingly not honouring the NPOV standpoint in the same Naming Convention by dismissing the notion of the Republic of China, and not differentiating between the ROC and Taiwan.--Huaiwei 23:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The question to answer is: does anyone outside the KMT consider the ROC to be "China"? The answer is a clear no. We're not picking sides by doing that, merely reflecting real world usage. The convenient short form of the Republic of China is "Taiwan", not China. Even the KMT uses Taiwan as the short form of the current country name even when they controlled the government (as Jiang illustrated about a year ago by looking up 80's era ROC publications). We aren't taking away any claim from hardcore KMT that they are the rightful China. We're not thrusting up any claim of Two Chinas, or any other answer to questions that are not being asked. It's a simple organizational technique based on the real world outside of that regions politics. SchmuckyTheCat

That the PRC goes under "C" should not be seen as some kind of "counterbalance" to allow the ROC to go under "T" for the sake of NPOV. Assess the ROC and Taiwan on its own merits.--Huaiwei 23:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think KMT is the only group that consider ROC to be "China". Even people outside the ROC refer the ROC often by saying "Taiwan", we can tell that Taiwan is the common usage.--Jerry 12:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow - looks like I missed a lot while on holiday! Here are my thoughts, FWIW.

I'm curious to know why the NPOV tag was put on the main page, but there's no discussion about it here. Did you have some problem with the current conventions, or a suggestion that hasn't yet been addressed in the preceding discussions?

I agree that the word "Taiwan" should not be linked to the article on the island of Taiwan, but rather that it should link back to the article on the Republic of China, since that's really what we're referring to (the nation, rather than the island).

I concur with the others regarding the "T" vs. "C" issue, for what it's worth. This article is about naming conventions, not political history or territorial claims. Frankly, most of the world, both citizens and governments, officially use "Taiwan" when referring to the Republic of China. That designation is not meant to be a statement about Taiwan independence, the legitimacy of the ROC state, the claims of the ROC over the mainland, any preference for pan-green over pan-blue or anything else. It's really just a matter of convenience - "Taiwan" is easier to remember and more useful when trying to differentiate between the "Republic of China" and the "People's Republic of China." I'd suggest alphabetizing it under "T." --Folic Acid 12:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Huaiwei that Republic of China should be alphabetized under "C". It should only be under "T" if you're talking about "Taiwan". Other terms such as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" should also be alphabetized under "C" since we are talking about the Republic of China and "Taiwan" is only there for clarification. I also agree that the word "Taiwan" should not be linked to the article on the island of Taiwan, but rather that it should link back to the article on the Republic of China, since we're referring to the state, rather than the island. LionheartX

Gonna throw my lot in with the "T" folks. As others have mentioned, that's where most people would expect to find stuff related to ROC/Taiwan/Taiwan authority/whateveritscalled. There's PC, and then there's common usage, both of which should be taken into account. If anything, Wikipedia already takes a more conservative approach than what passes for mainstream usage in real life, where the mainstream political factions adhering to a Taiwan-centric approach while retaining the ROC title, at least in the short term. The "re-conquer the mainland" days are long over and it is rare to find anyone under its jurisdiction who thinks that the ROC represents anything outside of Taiwan/Penghu/Kinmen/Matsu. The question is undue weight. How significant is the idea that the modern ROC represents China (separate from the naming issue, which is concerned more with how the ROC refers to itself)? -Loren 14:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note: I find the above comments leaning dangerously towards a complete rehash of the naming conventions that has been the cornerstone of NPOV policy here for quite some time now. It is obvious, that several users are no longer simply discussing a preference for "C" or "T" in alphabetical lists. It is the very idea of naming differentiation between Taiwan and the Republic of China that is now being disputed. That the article on Taiwan now refers strictly to the island of Taiwan, and not to the Republic of China is the result of existing naming conventions stated clearly in this document. If any user here is determined to classify the "Republic of China" under T, for the "Republic of China" to link to "Taiwan", and for the term "Taiwan" to refer to the "Republic of China", kindly call for a community wide relook at the entire naming convention, and to get full community concensus before embarking on this major change in naming policy. Kindly get concurrance from some old-timers here, such as User:Jiang, who were largely involved in working out the current compromise. I would strongly suggests against making a conclusion in this micro section which may be at odds with the entire convention.--Huaiwei 15:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A major change? The conventions had stated that Taiwan (ROC) should be listed under "T" until LionheartX added "C". And that's why I started this discussion.--Jerry 15:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from selective reading. The "major change" I mentioned was clearly not refering to the above issue alone.--Huaiwei 15:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry I was talking about the alphabetization. And amazingly, I just found out that it was Jiang who added the statement.--Jerry 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes I know full well what you are talking about. My message was for you to take the trouble to understand what others are talking about before commenting. And may I ask what your findings has caused that much amazement to you?--Huaiwei 16:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I think Jiang does not like the appearance of Taiwan.--Jerry 16:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not fully understand your comment. Please elaborate further.--Huaiwei 16:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, he didn't want (Taiwan) to be linked to Taiwan, I guess it's just my thought.--Jerry 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see his point, but I still fail to see the link between that and disliking the appearance of Taiwan.--Huaiwei 17:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact that there's no "T" in "Republic of China" mean that ROC shouldn't be listed under "T"? It's kind of basic logic, isn't it? ROC should go under either "R" or "C", because those are the two leading letters in the name "Republic of China". They'd find "Taiwan" if they're looking under "T", and they'd find "Republic of China" in either "R" or "C". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're being strictly literal, then you're probably right, Hong. My logic in being a proponent of the "T" alphabetization is this: Given that this is the English version of wikipedia, and given that most people in the English-speaking world refer to the Republic of China as "Taiwan" and think of the state as "Taiwan," and assuming that most people, if searching for the state, will search for "Taiwan," it seems logical (in a practical sort of way) to put the Republic of China in the place where most people will be looking for it - in the T's. However, I will concede that you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!); could we possibly compromise and place "Republic of China" under both "C" and "T?" --Folic Acid 16:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that, but the main listing has to be under "T".--Jerry 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You may like to be aware that the "Taiwan" is not merely a common terminology amongst the English-speaking world. It is too in the Chinese-speaking world, including China and Taiwan itself. But that is missing the primary point of name differentiation in the first place. The community here has made ditinctions between Taiwan and ROC for the sake of NPOV, even if this is at odds with common usage, because Wikipedia's NPOV policy superceeds common usage policy. No one disputes common usage with regards to the phrase "Taiwan". But can anyone dare claim that the word "Taiwan" is politically nuetral (not to say that the phrase ROC is politically nuetral also, but that is precisely the point...a compromise is needed!)--Huaiwei 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Precisely my point, Hong. You summed it up perfectly. Users here insisting on "NPOV" are kinda contradicting themselves when insisting that a phrase which carries no words which begins with a "T" be classified under "T", which is a blatant display of POV, irrespective of political viewpoint. If we are going to have the "ROC" under T, do consider having "Taiwan" under "C" also for true NPOV!--Huaiwei 17:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a POV issue at all. It's just a disconnect between the common name, "Taiwan" and the official name "Republic of China". Look, for example, at various lists of countries, where each is alphabetized by the common name. For 99% of them, the common name is a form of the official name but strange exceptions arise, "Korea, South" but "South Africa". In this instance, Taiwan and Republic of China are entirely dissimilar, but we are using the same alphabetizing technique as everything else, by common name. In order to make an argument to alphabetize at C, you have to claim that "China" is the common name, which is a very fringe view. This has nothing to do with a POV about Taiwan/ROC issues and is a simple matter of how all countries on Wikipedia are being treated - the same, by common name. SchmuckyTheCat

That the terms "Taiwan" and "ROC" were differentiated is to settle a POV issue over the use of either terminology, since each may be seen as representing a particular position over the political status of Taiwan. This is clearly an attempt to establish a NPOV. And the primary distinction between the treatment of Taiwan compared to that of other countries, is that while "Afghanistan" may be the official short name of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, is Taiwan in the same official status? Certain names of countries take on full official names for obvious political reasons, such as Republic of Ireland instead of the much more common Ireland. It beats me why folks here should think the political impasse over the Island of Taiwan should be any less controversial than that over the Island of Ireland to be coinsidered non-political.--Huaiwei 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetizing under both C and T is fine with me. Schmucky, is it possible to add an article to the same category twice, under different alphabetizations? --Ideogram 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

nope. SchmuckyTheCat

How unfortunate. In that case, I have to go with T. As far as I'm concerned, ease-of-use is the most important consideration. Where would a user expect to find Taiwan-related articles? There are many people who don't know Republic of China is the official name for Taiwan. There is nobody who doesn't know Taiwan is the common name of the Republic of China. This is not about Wikipedia NPOV policy. --Ideogram 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above. Ease-of-use can hardly be considered of greater importance than NPOV policy, and to call the Taiwan naming dispute a non-POV issue is kinda amusing to me, as much as the mass renaming exercise going on in Taiwan as we speak.Huaiwei 18:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely not about the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy is about including adequately sourced material from various points of view in articles. There is nothing neutral about alphabetizing Taiwan-related articles under C. --Ideogram 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and the editors that are claiming NPOV seem to be engaged in a campaign to eradicate the use of "Taiwan" throughout Wikipedia, which is itself a highly loaded and very POV change. There is a lot of dissembling and axe-grinding going on here, and I think we need input from people who are actually neutral on this issue. Alexwoods 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I am not sure if this is a fair comment to anyone citing the NPOV policy in this campaign, but if you wish to go down this path, kindly cite diffs to support your accusations. Kindly also indicate what constitutes "nuetral people" in this issue, and just what "neutrality" refers here.--Huaiwei 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is as I commented earlier, the discussion is loaded with comments on the need for NPOV, denouncing the current naming conventions as POV, and than offering an alternative viewpoint with regards to this alphabetising issue. This outcome will not be consistent with the rest of the naming convention. From the way I see it, the current compromise in the naming convention is an effort towards NPOV, and to contravene it certainly involves the NPOV policy. Further more, I don't think people are asking for "Taiwan" to be classified under "C". I, at least, am asking for the "Republic of China" to be classified under "C".--Huaiwei 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't just about people who are purposefully looking for Taiwan-related articles. It's plain strange if a reader is just browsing "T" articles and there's "Republic of China". It defies all English convention. I don't care if "People's Republic of China" is at "P" or "C" - both of those letters make sense because they are leading letters in the article's title. The same with either "R" or "C" for "Republic of China". It's not an issue of "common name". Listing either PRC and/or ROC at "C" makes sense because "China" is part of the article title. If NPOV is the issue, please be reminded that different points of views on cross-straits relations are plentifully covered in a number of articles. This NPOV battle shouldn't be waged on how to alphabetise articles. Simple English convention should be used on how to alphabetise articles. Some people are afraid that the difference between "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" may confuse readers. But that's exactly why, at the top of the ROC article, it says The "Republic of China" is commonly known as "Taiwan" or "Chinese Taipei". And at the top of the Taiwan article, it says This article is about the island of Taiwan. For the state that administers Taiwan, see Republic of China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, English convention is to refer to ROC as Taiwan. This is not debatable. --Ideogram 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that Taiwan is the commonly used name in English-language publications. And I'm personally neutral about how and when to use the names of "China", "Taiwan", "PRC", "ROC", etc. But alphabetising "Republic of China" under "T" makes no sense whatsoever. That term doesn't even have the letter "T" in it! You don't alphabetise a term under a letter that doesn't exist in the term. English convention would have us use one of the leading letters in the term, in this case it would be either "R" or "C". It's not about a naming dispute and it's not about NPOV. A 6-year old kid that speaks English as a second language can tell you that you don't alphabetise "Republic of China" under a letter that isn't even in the term. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Leaving your claim of neutrality aside, I agree that it doesn't make any sense to put ROC under T or Taiwan under R. What would you say to making an entry that says something along the lines of "Taiwan - see ROC"? Alexwoods 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it makes no sense to alphabetise "Taiwan" under "R". And at the top of the "Taiwan" article, it already says, This article is about the island of Taiwan. For the state that administers Taiwan, see Republic of China. So what are readers going to do? They're going to go to "T", click on "Taiwan", and decide that if they want to read about the ROC government, they'll click on "Republic of China". What's the point of alphabetising "Republic of China" under "T" anyway? People are still going to be click on the "Taiwan" article if they do not know what "Republic of China" is. And if they know what the Republic of China is, then they certainly wouldn't be looking for that under "T" - because that term doesn't begin with "T"! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But just because the ROC has "C" in its name does not mean it is "China", and therfore should not be alphabetized under letter "C". If you all think putting it under letter "T" doesn't make any sense, then I guess putting it under letter "R" would be the best other than T.--Jerry 21:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether it's alphabetised under "R" or "C". And even if we use "C", it's not a statement saying that Taiwan is a part of China. It's for the simple reason that "Republic of China" has "C" as one of the leading letters in the term. Different and opposing views on cross-straits issues are more than adequately covered in the body of a number of articles. Let's assume I'm the amateur reader who just read about this government "Republic of China" that was set up in mainland China after the fall of the Qing government in 1912. So I'm looking for this thing, but why is it not listed under either "R" or "C"? Why is it over at "T"? That would make no sense. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Kindly explain which "China" you are referring to, and cite any official declaration that the "two-China" notion has been dropped officially by the Taiwanese authorities.--Huaiwei 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And Taiwan should be alphabetized under "T".--Jerry 21:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point now. Classifying "Taiwan" under "T", and "Republic of China" under "T" is nuetral and fair. Classifying "Taiwan" under "T", and the "Republic of China" under "C" is not. I have yet to hear from you the suggestion to classify "Taiwan" under "C".--Huaiwei 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I said I guess putting it under letter "R" would be the best.--Jerry 23:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. Kindly comment if the PRC should go under "P". Also, please tell us if it is standard practise for the Republic of Ireland to be classified under "R". And since we are at it, perhaps all country names should be classified under the first letter of their official full names?--Huaiwei 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Hong, in the old Naming Conventions debate, you said you would not support an artificial convention that exists nowhere else but Wikipedia. In fact that is what you are doing here. There is no way we are going to alphabetize everything called a "Republic" under R. There are a lot of conventions in the world that are not obvious. Your rule doesn't "make more sense", it is just simpler. Why is South Korea under "Korea, South" and South Africa under "South Africa"? Why do we skip "The" and "A" when alphabetizing? Naming conventions aren't made by amateurs, or by 6-year olds who have English as a second language. --Ideogram 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Then alphabetise it under "C". Who cares? South Korea is under "K" and South Africa is under "S" - guess what? Both letters are leading letters in those terms! Nobody's going to look for "Republic of China" under "T"! Let me repeat the example I gave - assume I'm an amateur reader that just read about the fall of the Qing government, and now I want to read more about this "Republic of China" government that was set up in 1912. The first letter I'm going to look under is either "R" or "C". I sure as hell wouldn't expect it to be listed under "T", because that letter isn't even in the term. Maybe you're afraid there's going to be confusion with the name "Republic of China" - but that's why there's a line right at the top of both Taiwan and Republic of China to explain to the reader that maybe what he really wants is the other article. And it's not like I'm saying we should list "Taiwan" under any other letter than "T". Who the heck has ever heard of alphabetising a term under a letter that doesn't even exist in the term? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how NPOV is served by implementing a standard that few adhere to in the real world. I think we're all capable enough of judging each case based on its individual merits in determining how NPOV is best served. A quick scan of the English language media shows that Taiwan and ROC are often used synonymously. Naturally, all references here made to the state must use ROC in some form or another as no formal name change of the state has taken place. However, it is also understood and verifiable that 1) The modern ROC is synonomous with in the English language, and comprised predominately of, Taiwan (hence the point of disambiguation), 2) No mainstream political party in the ROC has actively claimed soverignty over Mainland China or Mongolia since the early 90s and the end of martial law, 3) No mainstream political party in the ROC has actively challenged the PRC's soverignty over Mainland China since the early 90s, 4) Formal changes are complicated by the delicate political situation between the ROC and PRC, hence the fact that most things are executed on the unofficial level. The point of categorizing the ROC under "T" is the understanding that most people who come on to Wikipedia searching for something we have filed under the ROC do so by searching for something related to Taiwan. This isn't about whether the ROC is or isn't Taiwan, but how people in English speaking countries (and likely most of the world) refer to the ROC/Taiwan Authorities/Taiwan/whatever. -Loren 06:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out again the caveat of undue weight. In adopting a naming policy or writing an article, we always have to keep in mind whether said policy or content is reflective of the world at large. As Ideogram mentioned above, adopting a standard simply on the basis of literal interpretation may not be NPOV, especially if said standard is not widely held outside of Wikipedia. By basing our conventions upon this, we are placing undue weight upon it. If you really wanted to be literal why not redefine the ROC's territorial boundaries in the locator maps to include all of Mainland China, and Mongolia? Those claims haven't been formally relinquished either, yet it is a very very small minority in Taiwan today, much less the world, that still takes them seriously, especially the latter. Now I can see rationale for cross-referencing the ROC under multiple listings, especially in the context of the pre-1949 ROC. However, to have the conventions basically deny the verifiable fact that Taiwan and the ROC are pretty much interchangeable in common parlance is something I cannot in good faith agree to. -Loren 04:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hong, you really don't understand my point. You are fixated on this rule that basically you invented, which is that no item should be alphabetized under a letter that doesn't occur in the item. An even simpler rule is that we should always alphabetize under the first letter, such as 'S' for South Korea, or 'R' for Republic of Korea, or even 'T' for The Republic of Korea but you ignore that. You are arguing that your rule is "simple" while ignoring even simpler rules. Different rules have different advantages; you seem to think that the advantage you have identified is the only important one. Personally, I think the advantage of adhering to an already existing rule is more important. --Ideogram 06:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting comment there. If Hong has indeed "invented" a rule for himself, please cite relevant examples whereby we have extensive cases where proper nouns are being classified in alphabetical lists in a manner you so describe. Please cite list examples where items are listed alphabetically under letters which arent the first letter in any of the words in the noun itself. Instead of attempting to pick on him over specific words he choose to use, how about finding us the above list example for a change?--Huaiwei 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, do some of you even know what the meaning of "alphabetise" is? Open up your English dictionary. The word "apple" is not listed under "M" for the apple being a malus domestica. If people are trying to look up the term "Republic of China" - why in the world would they look under "T"? And if they already know what the ROC is, they would go straight for the Taiwan article anyway because Taiwan is the common name. And news flash, the Republic of China article is not just about Taiwan. The ROC was established in the mainland in 1912 with the intention of ruling the entirety of China. Some of you are worried about the name being misleading - that's exactly why we have handy lines of text right at the top of both the ROC and the Taiwan articles to explain the difference between the ROC and Taiwan. This is not an issue of NPOV - NPOV is readily established in the body of numerous articles. It's not even a naming dispute - nobody is talking about renaming articles. It's a simple matter of correct alphabetisation. Why is "Republic of China" supposed to be listed under "T" when the term doesn't even start with the letter "T"? I don't give a damn whether or not "South Korea" is alphabetised with an "S" or a "K", so long as it isn't alphabetised with a "C" for "Choson" - because "South Korea" is the article name, not "Choson". And yeah I know "Taiwan" is the commonly used name - but the ROC article is still named "Republic of China", and not "Taiwan". Nobody is talking about replacing instances of the word "Taiwan" with "Republic of China" across articles, so the common usage argument is moot because we're not talking about which one of those two terms we should be using in articles. We're talking about how to alphabetise "Republic of China". Even if you list it under "T", it's still going to be called "Republic of China". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You aren't listening, you are repeating yourself, and you are getting mad. There isn't any point to responding you anymore. --Ideogram 08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And I dare say the same applies to yourself. A disagreement is a disagreement. Acknowledge that, and quit admonishing others for failing to make sence of what you are saying. I, too, fail to appreciate your point, so I am mad as well?--Huaiwei 14:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm getting upset, because the whole idea that we should alphabetise something under a letter that doesn't even exist in the term is ludicrous. I don't care if this has to do with Taiwan-related articles or articles relating to any other topic.

• It's not an NPOV issue. Numerous articles already cover all the different views in cross-straits relations. Alphabetising "Republic of China" under "R" or "C" doesn't mean that WP is being bias against Taiwan - both of these letters are leading letters in the term.
• It's not an issue of common usage. This common usage argument is great when you're edit-warring with those editors that insist on going around various articles replacing the word "Taiwan" with "Republic of China". But we're not talking about which is the better term to use right here - we're just talking about how to alphabetise "Republic of China". You can put it under "T", it's still going to be called "Republic of China".
• It's not a naming dispute. We're not talking about renaming anything.
• There's no issue of reader confusion. That's why there's text at the top of both Taiwan and Republic of China explaining the difference.
• Lastly, people aren't going to look for "Republic of China" under "T"! The letter is not in that term at all! They're going to expect it to be under "C" or "R".

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope the majority of users here arent expecting to find the "People's Republic of China" under "Z". If there are, please sound the alarm bells so that we can consider placing the "Republic of China" under "T".--Huaiwei 14:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with HongQiGong on this. "alphabetisation" means indexing it according to its leading letter. If you feel that a different part of a multi-word entry is the principal word, you can index it according to that: e.g. "Korea, Republic of" could be filed under K.

Really, keep the politics out of alphabetisation, please! --PalaceGuard008 12:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please have a read of Collation#Alphabetical order. --PalaceGuard008 12:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

*Lastly, people aren't going to look for "Republic of China" under "T"! The letter is not in that term at all! They're going to expect it to be under "C" or "R". In a perfect world, I'd say you're right. However, we're not in a perfect world. I dare say that most people (in the English-speaking world) don't know that the "Republic of China" is the official name - to 99% of the people I deal with (both personally and professionally as a foreign-relations guy), the state is "Taiwan." I'd also highly doubt that anyone looking for information on the Republic of China is going to spend time plowing through the alphabetical index looking for the term. Rather, they'll either just type "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" into the search field and see what shows up.

So, I suppose the question is a pretty petty and insubstantial one. I'm not giving up my opinion that it should be placed under "Taiwan," but I'm not going to insist upon it either.

Also, Palaceguard, I understand where you're coming from when calling for people to leave politics out of the issue, and I completely agree. However, it's necessary to realize that the whole question of the name of the state is a crucial political issue in Taiwan politics - insisting on calling the state the "Republic of China" gives the impression of being a pan-blue supporter, while a strong preference for calling the state "Taiwan" all the time leads one to conclude that the proponent is a pan-green supporter. As a (lazy) American (and not particularly a supporter of either side), I prefer to go with whatever term best fits the situation (which is why I'm so into this naming convention thing - it helps codify when the various terms would be most appropriate). Anyway, that's just my $.02. --Folic Acid 16:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So are we discussing about a simple alphabetisation issue, or are we really talking about the preferred term for the government which is currently ruling the island of Taiwan and its surrounding islets? I clearly remember sounding the alarm bells on this lack of distinction, yet someone comes out saying we are merely talking about alphabetisation, while others claim that NPOV isnt under contention here. If so, what's all these talk on colour supporters, etc? It is plain clear to me that politics is involved, so I just hope some users here would quit pretending they arent talking without a political standpoint in mind before we proceed further.--Huaiwei 16:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you speaking to me? If so, then I can assure you that I really am speaking without any political standpoint - my concern is strictly practical. I reiterate what I said before - it's my opinion that it's technically correct to list "Republic of China" under "C." However, I contend that very few people in the English-speaking world actually know the Republic of China by that name. Rather, they know it as "Taiwan" (without any political prejudice - it's just a common name). However, my other observation is that since the alphabetization issue is trivial at best (nobody's really going to look up the article on the ROC via the alphabetical index anyway), I will not insist on "T" instead of "C." --Folic Acid 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops I was just about to add in a disclaimer that my comment isnt really directed at you! My apologies if I caused any undue distress. Now I am pretty agreeable with your comments on common usage. This has been repeated multiple times, and I do not deny it. But I continue to single out some parralel examples to underscore a certain uniqueness of this site when it comes to dealing with sensitive issues where the article name can be political in itself, namely Ireland and Palestine. Both names are assumed by most English users to be in reference to the Republic of Ireland and the political entity controlled by the Palestinian National Authority, yet wikipedia treats the former of each entity as strictly geograhical. Is there any compelling reason why the Taiwan issue should be treated differently?--Huaiwei 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken at all - even if you were referring to me.  ;) Given your examples of Ireland and Palestine and their relation to the ROC/Taiwan in this case, I drop my objection to the alphabetization issue. I'd like to point out, too, that given the contentious nature of these issues, and the incredibly frustrating nature of previous discussions about these various issues, I definitely appreciate your civility and reasonableness, Huaiwei. Cheers to you, sir. --Folic Acid 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that few would call me "civil" when it comes to heated disagreements, so I must thank you profusely for this rare accolade. ;) Perhaps I have a major issue with hyprocritical behavior (just check out my comment above!), and I can be pretty blatant about that. Back to the issue under discussion: Perhaps I do not even really need to pluck examples from halfway round the globe. Even China itself isnt in reference to the People's Republic of China, although just about anyone would assume that as well. I just hope that more would understand that while Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is applicable in most cases, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is "absolute and non-negotiable." The later superceeds the former in dispute cases, not the other way round. Many many thanks for appreciating at least some of the points I raised earlier, and for considering my viewpoint despite this being a very lopsided discussion!--Huaiwei 17:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this logic that since people know Taiwan as "Taiwan" and not "Republic of China", it justifies putting "Republic of China" under "T". Um... if they're looking for Taiwan under "T" and don't know what "Republic of China" is, then they're going to go click on "Taiwan" anyway. And like I've said so many times, right at the top of Taiwan, there's a line of text that suggests maybe the ROC article is what the reader is looking for. Also like I've said before - the Republic of China is not just about Taiwan. The government was initially set up in mainland China in 1912, with the original intent of governing the whole of China. The article reflects this piece of history. The ROC is not a home-grown government that sprouted up when the KMT retreated to Taiwan. If NPOV is your concern, then take that into consideration. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin

I modified the table so that the origin goes together with birthplace. I gave a reason above and no one replied. The reason was that origin means ancestry or birthplace, and definitely not nationality. About two days later, LionheartX reverted it w/o any reason other than an edit summary of more neutral. That was definitely not neutral at all.--Jerry 13:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions states that we should use "Taiwan" only when "identifying a birthplace in the context of a geographical location" "Taiwan" should not be used when identifying the state. The neutrality of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) is disputed and should not be used until the "disputed" and "POV" tags are removed. LionheartX

Origin does not mean state, it means "beginning," which can be interpreted as ancestry or birthplace.--Jerry 14:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "origin" is redundant so it is unnecessary. It is more neutral to use the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" for nationality and origin. LionheartX

Origin does not mean state or country at all, not even seldom.--Jerry 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

LionheartX, is your dispute with the naming conventions only regarding under which section "origin" should fall? I don't mean to be picky, but it would be nice to work the questions out. As you can see, we've been talking about these particular issues for quite some time now, and I thought we'd gotten them all resolved. --Folic Acid 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps hoping for a quick resolution to such a long-standing picky issue is a tad ambitious. I just happened to chance upon that new table, and I am beginning to feel uncomfortable with it as well. Perhaps I will consolidate my toughts and give some views later.--Huaiwei 17:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure any reasonable discussion will be welcome. I'm just curious to know what specifically the point of contention is. --Folic Acid 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok to be brief about it, I am wondering if it is even neccesary to include the column for "Either Republic of China (Taiwan) or Taiwan (Republic of China)". Are we using the parentheses to signify differentiation, or are we using it to depict alternatives, because while the text seems to be suggesting the former, I believe most people may assume it is the later. Yet both forms will contradict current naming conventions identifying "Taiwan" as the island mass, and not the political identity (unless we change the current conventions as above). I question some of the example entries within this column, such as the last, which is at odds with the way most people would write location information (we dont place brackets at the end of a string of hierarchical location names. Imagine "Dublin, Dublin Region, Leinster, Ireland (Republic of Ireland)", which makes little sence). The first entry seems to validate its universal use, since the "attempt for differentiation" can easily apply for any instance where the phrase "Republic of China" is used. And if I were to approach that table as a layman, the extensive writeup for that column is going to give this impression that it is the "preferred" version.--Huaiwei 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing that "Taiwan is only the island" was removed a few years ago. :) Using Taiwan to refer to the polity is acceptable. SchmuckyTheCat

Taiwan appears to be talking about the Island, however, as much as Ireland does so.--Huaiwei 15:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[[Taiwan]] does refer to the island, but the word "Taiwan" does not necessarily refer to the island. --Folic Acid 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. Meanwhile, check out Palestine too. I think the pattern is becoming obvious now.--Huaiwei 16:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to consider dropping the "Taiwan (Republic of China)" bit, but I'd oppose dropping the entire column. I disagree that "current naming conventions" identify "'Taiwan' as the island mass, and not the political entity." According to the little box I drew up with the various columns (which was agreed to previously, save for TingMing), "Taiwan" should be used in the instances specified (generally, when referring to the island itself), and "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)" should be used in the instances specified there (generally, when referring to the commonly-used name for the state governing Taiwan, Penghu, Matsu, Kinmen, etc.). In the English-speaking world, when someone refers to "Taiwan," I would almost guarantee that they're actually referring to the ROC (unless they're a geek, like me) and not solely to the physical island of Taiwan. Call it ignorance, laziness, or whatever, but most people call the ROC "Taiwan," and we have to deal with that. --Folic Acid 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is getting big. Anyone mind if I archive the 2006-and-older stuff? --Folic Acid 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Done. -Loren 19:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I get for posting right before I leave work. Thanks, Loren. --Folic Acid 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tone marks in article titles?

There is currently nothing in the page mention about whether the tone marks of pinyin should be included in the titles of article. Should we include something on this in the page? My opinion is that article titles generally shouldn't include tone marks except in rare cases of disambiguation, like Emperor Xuanzong of Tang and Emperor Xuānzong of Tang. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 09:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tone marks and mixed case should never be used for disambiguation. Those links are broken.

As to tone marks, this was discussed a while ago, look in the archives. SchmuckyTheCat 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

An interesting observation

There have long been raids towards Hong Kong and Macau related articles that they should be shown as "Hong Kong, China" and "Macau, China" to demonstrate Chinese sovereignty. Yet in the recent spcial issue of TIME Asia titled "The Best of Asia", I found "Tokyo, Japan", "Kolkata, India", "Seoul, South Korea", "Thimphu, Bhutan", "Beijing, China", "Kabul, Afghanistan", "Delhi, India", "Bangkok, Thailand", "Jakarta, Indonesia", but simply "Hong Kong" or "Kowloon, Hong Kong" instead of "Hong Kong, China" or "Hong Kong, People's Republic of China". Is that illustrating something? Nobody ever disputes China's sovereignty over the two territories, yet there exists an established convention in printed publications how they are dealed with. Michael G. Davis 14:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's really comparable. Your list from Time Asia is in the format of "name of city", "name of country", whereas "Hong Kong, China" and "Macau, China" are "name of region (SAR)", "name of country". LDHan 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you meant by the latter. The "name of city", "name of country" format is prevalent everywhere, including printed publications. Michael G. Davis 23:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. I wonder how many would consider TIME magazine universally politically correct, and a bastion of political nuetrality for Wikipedia to adopt wholeheartedly in respect of its NPOV policy.--Huaiwei 16:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and btw, you are quite right that the "name of city", "name of country" format is prevalent everywhere. I just noticed the front cover of the 18 June 2007 issue of TIME Magazine (Vol. 169, No. 23) has a large "HONG KONG, CHINA" on its front cover.[4] (and the full report here)--Huaiwei 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the "city, country" format is mostly used here in WP to disambiguate between two cities of the same name. Note that I don't think anybody has wanted to move Guangzhou to "Guangzhou, China" or "Guangzhou, Guangdong, China" or any various combination that can be concocted. Same with New York City. And even then, the Saint Petersburg in Russia seemed to be sitting on that article name without the country part attached despite there being two other cities named St. Petersburg in the US. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)