Talk:Taiwan/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Acknowledging Important Factors while Attempting to Simplify Matters (Part II)

Guys, this is a massive tangent. We do not name articles according to political speeches or slogans. Whether the ROC is legitimate or not is not for Wikipedia to decide. CommonName is what we need to follow. And as someone said, it isn't POV to use a common name. John Smith's (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyways the goal really is to start off with the changes user kirby pointed out. And go from there. Are people ok with these changes? Benjwong (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Republic of China ---rename and move---> Taiwan
  • Taiwan#History ---cut and paste---> Republic of China#History (current article) / Taiwan#History (new article)
  • Republic of China#History ---contents moved to---> Government of the Republic of China#History, History of the Republic of China, (Republic of China (1912-1949))
  • Taiwan ---moved to---> Taiwan (island)
    • "it isn't POV to use a common name" - no, WP:COMMONNAME explicitly states that neutrality is a concern with article names, and that common names are sometimes replaced with the second-most common names if neutrality and clarity are important concerns. You cannot just sweep the entire issue under the rug by making up policies. JimSukwutput 06:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I broadly support those changes (and would add that a lot of in-text references to ROC in other articles should change to Taiwan as well). They would appear to reflect common usage, in that it is incredibly rare to see Taiwan referred to as "the Republic of China" in media, official or academic sources in 2012 except in specific contexts. As for WP's common name policy, the key quote is surely as follows: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms" (which is also the standard held to for most other country articles). Reliance on "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" fails on two counts - 1) ROC is really not very common at all (even if it might be the second-most common); 2) no-one has really ever spelled out what the specific "problem" with preferring "Taiwan" is anyway, in terms of supposed lack of neutrality or anything else. Even if there is such a problem, WP:POVTITLE - which anyway primarily refers to the use of explicitly non-neutral terms such as "massacre" or "murder" - tells us that "the prevalence of the name ... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue"; the relevant section of WP:NPOV itself says "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased". N-HH talk/edits 15:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
With in-text references differ so much from the title, it's going to make readers seriously confused. There are simply too many occassions that we gotta differentiate (a) Taiwan as a euphenism for the contemporary ROC, which is still carrying on the constitution, the laws, the institutions, the state organs, etc., of the pre-1945/49 ROC, and (b) Taiwan as the former Japanese possession that had gone through decades of a different path of history and is now having a high-profile movement towards independence. The best way to differentiate these two concepts is to have one article titled 'Republic of China', with the word 'Taiwan' bolded in its lead paragraph, and another article title 'Taiwan (island)'. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
@Benjwong - I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. We don't have to move content around. That's unneccessary. All we need to do is to move the article on the island to Taiwan (island), and turn the Taiwan namespace into a redirect or a disambiguation page. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
When the move was made from PRC -> China. While I strongly disagree with it, I at least have the intention to stick around and help make whatever changes. When ROC is permanently referred to as Taiwan (almost like an independent state), I hope you too will stick around and help make whatever changes necessary. The part about the island is like the 4th item on the list of priority. Please see above. Benjwong (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
While we refer to the contemporary Republic of China with the euphemism 'Taiwan', we don't say 'Taiwan hasn't dropped the claim over the Chinese mainland'. Calling the ROC 'Taiwan' wouldn't be more correct or accurate than calling the Netherlands Holland. We don't create another trouble just because of the first trouble that we've created. We fix the first trouble. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There should be no change - the ROC article should remain at the "Republic of China". 86.42.24.212 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not ignore facts

  • Republic of China = Taiwan + other minor islands (+ mainland China and even HK & MO)
  • People's Republic of China = Mainland China + Hong Kong + Macau + other minor islands (+ Taiwan)

Kinmen and Matsu belong to the Republic of China, but they are not in Taiwan; in addition, they belong to Fujian Province, Republic of China. Is Fujian equal to Taiwan? -- Meow 19:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, alternatively, the facts are as follows -
  • The Republic of China - commnly known, including by much of its own media and official sources, as Taiwan - controls the island of Taiwan and other minor islands. It claims (to an increasingly diminishing extent and to an increasingly diminishing audience) to also be the legitimate authority in mainland China and even Hong Kong and Macau.
  • The People's Republic of China - commonly known throughout the English-speaking world as China - controls what is often referred to as Mainland China, as well as also Hong Kong and Macau as special administrative regions. It claims the territory currently ruled by the ROC as part of China proper.
Furthermore, the other undeniable fact is that 95% of English-language references to the phrases "Taiwan" and "China" in 2012 use them as per the bolded terms above. Country profiles from the CIA to the BBC file the main details of these countries under those short-form terms, not the full-length official titles; Wikipedia files every other country profile (including that country's history) under short-form terms, unless there is significant ambiguity or dual meaning. An article title or one-word description is just that, not necessarily a statement of deep fundamental interpretation. The complexities at the margins and the claims and counterclaims on sovereignty and territory can, should be and are covered in article text. N-HH talk/edits 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
No question that this article should be moved to Taiwan, but the leading sentence must include the long form name "ROC" as well as a reference that Taiwan is currently not a member of the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it should. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Not that I'm disagreeing, but, why does it matter for it to say that it is not a member of the UN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.140 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I assume that in any history it would mention being replaced in the UN by the PRC, as that was a major diplomatic milestone. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
None of the other states with limited recognition have that in the 1st line of their articles, this article doesn't need it either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
@N-HH - The CIA, e.g., is obliged to follow the official position of the US. And the position of the US is bounded by the Taiwan Relations Act. According to the Taiwan Relatons Act, Taiwan covers only the main island (including the islets around it, of course) and the Pescadores. Kinmen and the Matsu Islands aren't, as defined by that act, included as part of 'Taiwan'. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The facts you point out are obviously the blatant truth in reality, and were accurately addressed under the old format of the China articles with "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China". However, it is not what is reflected based on the English speaking community of today, as well as the current circumstances of the articles as well. We do realize that the Republic of China controls Kinmen and Matsu, it has never been an over-sight in this debate. The point arisen however is that the state is now commonly known as Taiwan due to its geographical composition and political status. The proposals don't seek to change any proper information in regards to administrative divisions. Even so, looking at the government situation of the Republic of China as well, it only controls 1 full province of its original composition under its Constitution, and two off-shore counties of a second (Fujian). The fact of this has led to the provincial governments becoming very much defunct in many, if not all, political and administrative affairs within the state. In its current situation, the provinces of the Republic of China no longer account for much power. Kirby173 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • What evidence is there that the state is commonly known as Taiwan? When I see a reference to Taiwan it is more often than not a reference to its economy, its people, its politics; not the political and legal entity. In contrast, when I see a political reference, it is more often known as Republic of China (Taiwan) or Chinese Taipei (for example, some rankings of political freedom use this, and a lot of encyclopaedias - like Wikipedia - use ROC for the state's name). It is mentioned that some agencies like the CIA refer to the state as Taiwan, but of course they are obliged to do so under U.S. law, since the U.S. does not formally recognize the ROC as an alternative Chinese state. It is not really that clear-cut that Taiwan is the common name for the government, which is part of the move proposal. Has there been any formal findings on this issue on Wikipedia? JimSukwutput 06:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This confusion over terms such as state and government has slightly bedevilled the China/PRC issue, in that the move to China caused complaints from people that Wikipedia was favouring the communist regime somehow by allotting it the name China (rather than simply acknowledging standard, real-world usage and terminology). Again, by talking about Taiwan as the state, we mean the geopolitical nation-state, country or whatever (being conscious of its slightly ambiguous status in that regard), not the political system or regime or specific government - ie "yesterday Taiwan announced", "during a trip to Taiwan, Hillary Clinton said". The list of those bodies and publications that use the Taiwan/China terminology in this way goes way beyond the CIA. You will find examples of use dominant in text in virtually every English-language book, newspaper that you pick up (with exceptions, but not many); most profiles or descriptions of the country use Taiwan as the lead name (see BBC, Britannica, FCO, all cited & linked elsewhere); and you will find plenty of explicit assertions that Taiwan is the common name - and probably none that assert that ROC is the common name. If this page did move, we would still presumably have "Government of .." pages for both China and Taiwan, which possibly ought to keep the more formal, official names in the article title. N-HH talk/edits 13:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, Jim, to what is GIO Minister Philip Yang referring to when he says "[...] to demonstrate Taiwan's active role in the promotion of economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region over the past two decades", or "Taiwan has proposed many important initiatives to the APEC membership, leading to some impressive achievements"?[1] Is he referring to the island of Taiwan and intentionally excluding other ROC territories, or is he in fact referring to the political entity of which he is a representative as Taiwan? What about the title and first line of the article, "Taiwan celebrates 20th year of APEC membership: The ROC government is celebrating the country's 20 years in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum"? This seems to rather clearly indicate that the GIO regards Taiwan as a name for the country, not just a geographic location or political subdivision. This link is just one example, the GIO website's press releases are littered with ROC=Taiwan equations. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me that it's referring to the economy. As a political entity, the ROC claims but does not govern most of its territories, which means it will be incorrect (to them) to say things such as "ROC is interested in joining the Trans-Pacific partnership as a liberal economy". So they use Taiwan in place of that. But notice that in the article, when it's explicitly referring to the political entity (e.g. "ROC's government"), they use the term ROC. It is clear from this that these two terms are not perfectly interchangeable, which further proves my point. JimSukwutput 13:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, if anything that all seems to back up the points I made in the preceding post - "Taiwan" is the way the entity itself is commonly referred to, although in the context of referring to the government specifically, "Government of the Republic of China"/"ROC government" is used. So that's the way our articles should be titled: we have the latter "government" article under that title, we now need to just switch the former article, about the state/country/whatever to "Taiwan". Easy, clear, standard throughout the English-speaking world and follows the usage even employed by Taiwan itself - not that the last would necessarily trump third party terminology and sources if there were a clash; but if even they use it as well, that surely says something? N-HH talk/edits 15:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, the fact that they reserved the term ROC for the political entity and Taiwan for non-political uses should indicate to you that these two terms are not interchangeable. I'm not sure how you managed to arrive at a different conclusion from that article. JimSukwutput 18:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, we're both slightly relying on our own guesswork and subjective interpretation here (and this example is not of course definitive by itself either way), but I dispute that "fact" as asserted and any such definitive claims about the lack of interchangability. I also find it hard to accept an assertion that this sentence for example - "Taiwan has proposed many important initiatives to the APEC membership" - represents "non-political" use of the phrase Taiwan. It's using Taiwan as a terms for the geopolitical entity "Taiwan" in exactly the same sense that a French minister might say "France is making a new proposal to the EU". N-HH talk/edits 18:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, that's my reading as well. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Jim, I think if the pan Green camp wins, Taiwan should join TPP as Taiwan, not Chinese Taipei or even ROC. Same with the next olympics. Benjwong (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't wanna throw in politics here but, do you think that sort of thing will be possible when the commies are using their RMB to block it? Don't just say we will "strongly resist and condemn Beijing's actions". 8 years of corrupt DPP rule, with all the ruckus about "joining the UN under the name Taiwan", changing state-owned enterprises' names etc. only resulted in the erosion of Taiwan's international position and losing more diplomatic allies to the mainland. Will the Green-camp be happy only after all of our remaining 23 diplomatic allies cut relations with us and join the commies' "United Front"? Please do not turn the clock back and damage Taiwan further already. Raiolu (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Taiwan have an interest in "turning its back on the mainland, and run towards the world". [2] Are you saying the world has nothing more than 23 diplomatic allies for Taiwan, and the rest are greedy RMB-bribable countries? I didn't know it was that bad. Benjwong (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That is empty talk by the DPP. Pro-Green media tend to paint a beautiful picture of things they advocate, and when that fails, they start going, "Oh...it's not our fault", and starts "taichi-ing" the blame to someone else. Costa Rica was a staunch ally of the ROC for 60 years, but still it waved goodbye to the ROC in 2007 thanks to the DPP. Look at how many diplomatic allies the ROC has lost during the DPP's 8 years in power, while not a single one got cold feet, kissed RMB notes filled with Chairman Mao's face and jumped ship when the policy of "flexible diplomacy" and a "diplomatic truce" came into effect after Ma Ying-jeou was inaugurated. Oh by the way, there's also talk of Saint Lucia bidding us farewell too. If that happens after the election, have fun crying over spilt milk and revel in finger-pointing games if 空心Tsai is elected. Raiolu (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, can we have a bit less on Taiwanese politics? WP is not a soapbox or a forum after all, and there's enough on-topic verbosity without going off on a tangent as well .. N-HH talk/edits 16:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole proposal should be scrapped as a train wreck. Wendin (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it should be pursued as the only sensible way to finally bring Wikipedia into line with the rest of the world and how it uses the word "Taiwan" in 99% of cases and, coming at it from the other side, what 99% of references to "Taiwan" mean. Who, today, describes this entity as "the Republic of China"? Even Taiwan doesn't describe itself under that name half the time. It's only a potential train wreck because a few people keep arguing in favour of a veto on any move and keep digging for more and more obscure and technical arguments as to why, supposedly, it would be "wrong". N-HH talk/edits 17:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
N-HH is correct. There's no train wreck at all. But some people are trying to endlessly debate the issue, possibly in the hope that everyone else will get bored and go elsewhere. John Smith's (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It was declared at one point that "This is not a move. No article will be renamed, nor is it expected there will be a large movement of content." Yet all of the debate seems to be focused on the move question. The train wreck comment was about that lack of focus. I'm in the minority, I'd just like some clarity. Wendin (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Last I heard, Jpech95 had been working on a sandbox version of the various articles for demonstration. What's the status on this? I think a good demonstration would make an effective centrepiece for discussion on actual change. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Well the tag about the proposed move was taken off. Was that intentional? Wendin (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. The person who started this thread removed the tag. Sorry, I wasn't aware that was the case. Wendin (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

People should respect the law and the reality: the "ROC" should remain at the "Republic of China" page. That is the only objective way. 86.42.24.212 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: WN:COMMONNAME either matters or it doesn't.

I propose we settle the COMMNONAME matter on the PR and RO China articles once and for all; China was decided and left the ROC out in the cold. This article needs to be a straight rename to Taiwan, anything less undermines arguments over COMMONNAME on the issue of the PRC and the ROC. I fully expect those that agreed with the move from PRC > China to support this initiative as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I support moving this article to Taiwan, but I'm not as interested in pushing for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
As do I, although there's only one of these tedious battles I can take at one time. There's an issue of how exactly we title the distinct pages about the island proper and the sovereign country/renegade province/true Chinese state - take your pick, I don't care - but we need to follow normal, mainstream, current usage here when it comes to basic article titles, as with "China". Flying in the face of that by using obscure terminology for the article name - however "official" it might be - out of some purported greater "accuracy" or "correctness" simply jars with the terminology and nomenclature that most people read and see everywhere else; and, pace the wailing, it in fact creates confusion rather than clarifying anything. Clarification is something that should be done in the body of text and via hatnotes that define the terms that we - following everyone else - are using, both as article titles, and in text elsewhere as appropriate, not through imposing unknown, archaic or obscure descriptions. And as for the broader question, I have no idea how, when and through who this naming convention got approved. Seriously - Taiwan only for the geographic island? "Side-by-side" constructions such as 'China warns Taiwan' "should generally be avoided"? Does anyone who agreed all that even read modern English language books or newspapers? N-HH talk/edits 23:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The proposal hasn't dyed out. The discussion you see here if more or less the same argument that's been going on for months. If you want it to go through, help us with our proposal we've set up at User:Jpech95/taiwan. This is what me as well as most of the supporters are working on to get this moving along. Jpech1995-2012 23:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
In order for COMMONNAME to matter, this article must be a direct rename to Taiwan. Your article is skirting the COMMONNAME issue by providing the ROC during WWII as a link to a separate article; the COMMONNAME of the Republic of China is Taiwan. Also, there can be no ROC and Taiwan, they are the same place, like the "China" article, there should only be "Taiwan" under COMMONNAME. COMMONNAME either matters or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I know what you mean, and I have noticed that there is little progress on the article I titled Republic of China which makes me feel that it isn't necessary. The whole point was that I figured we should still have an ROC article, which could serve as basically, something akin to what the article French Fifth Republic does. Now when you said "your article is skirting the COMMONNAME issue by providing the ROC during WWII as a link to a seperate article," if you were refering to my Taiwan article (which I assume you were, and not my ROC article), I had looked into what you were talking about and that I did not see. During World War II, we refer to Taiwan as the island which was administered by mainly the Japenese until its surrender. Can you explain what you meant by that phrase I listed above? Thanks. Jpech1995-2012 02:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The issue present with the Republic of China is far more complex than what a simple rename of the article can accomplish. The Republic of China is like a government-in-exile of some sorts, having shifted from governing all of China to just Taiwan and its surrounding islands. As such, it shares only a fraction in terms of local culture and heritage that has extended further into the past, such as when Taiwan was under Japanese rule, or the Qing Dynasty. The Republic of China article cannot be treated in the same way as the People's Republic of China was. The PRC follows the Chinese government succession timeline, from Qing => ROC => PRC. However, the ROC failed to relinquish from existence, and has instead evolved into a completely different state since the events of 1949. This is why a simple COMMONNAME resolution cannot solve everything, and why this proposal has evolved into a more complex revamping of major articles with concern to the Republic of China and Taiwan. Kirby173 (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The fact that the ROC historically encompassed mainland China, while ironically it did not cover Taiwan, means that any such renaming would be wildly inaccurate. Ngchen (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
But if we just name the country and what it used to be, what's the point? The ROC doesn't even assert its claim to China and Mongolia any longer, it is quite happy with the territory it has, as is most of the international community (including the PRC, to certain extents). The average reader doesn't know that much about Asian history and would have no idea that this Republic of China DOESN'T rule mainland China. It sounds like it. Although I accept keeping it here, it truly seems entirely unnecessary, especially with all the proposals before and now seeing that China was renamed (as controversial as some found it). Jpech95 02:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It no longer actively asserts its claims, but it still using the original constitution, applying the old laws, and preserving the old state institutions and organs. The name Republic of China is still printed on its passports, and so on and so forth. 10th October is still celebrated as a national day to honour the revolution and foundation of the Republic. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I oppose any move of this article (especially to "Taiwan"); "Taiwan" is a provice - whether it is a province of the ROC or PRC is debatable, but a province it is; not a sovereign state. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying it is, definitively, a fully sovereign state. In fact of course it has a slightly odd and ambiguous status and faces different claims from different places. However, whatever it theoretically "is" at some academic and esoteric level, "Taiwan" is nonetheless the term used overwhelmingly in respect of the geopolitical entity that this article purports to describe. What makes Wikipedia so special that, on the say-so of a few anonymous/pseudonymous editors, it should continue to call it something else entirely? We have rules on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which make perfect sense. Yes, technically Taiwan is also the name of an island - but what island nation is simply the one island? And, the whole point of this proposal is to have a "Taiwan (island)" article about that specifically; and, finally, we would still have other articles about the claimed "Republic of China", eg its history and government - we just would no longer be suggesting that the term is in common use to describe the nation-state/province/political unit/whatever known to everyone else in 2012 as Taiwan. This article, would, however, also note its status as official title, in the very first sentence. I don't see how better to combine clarity and accuracy (and without taking sides in any cross-strait politics). N-HH talk/edits 17:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The way that I see it, the 'common name' principle is primarily intended for, be it, cases where a person is known under another name than his formal or original name, be it Madonna instead of Madonna Louise Ciccone and Max Weber instead of Karl Emil Maximilian Weber. I have also seen this principle used to defend a historically incorrect, but today dominating spelling, Tordenskjold.

A country, on the other hand, should first and foremost be known by its official name, be it (Federal Republic of) Germany, (Kingdom of) Norway, (Republic of) China, etc.

Could it be a possibility to make Taiwan a disambiguation page linking to a) Taiwan (state), which today redirects to Republic of China, and to b) Taiwan (island), which today redirects to Taiwan?

--- Breadbasket (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There should be no change here. The "Republic of China" title is objective and neutral. Pretending the Taipei-based state is named "Taiwan" is ignoring basic historic truths and current political realities. People should drop this POV campaign. 86.42.24.212 (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I challenge you to try renaming United States to its official name. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There should be no change here. The "Republic of China" title is objective and neutral. Pretending the Taipei-based state is named "Taiwan" is ignoring basic historic truths and current political realities. People should drop this POV campaign. 86.42.24.212 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense. The 99% of the world's people and media who know the country by its current common name of Taiwan are NOT expressing a POV when they call it that. To most of them the claimed "historic truths and current political realities" are irrelevant. People who ignore the practical truth I have just written actually weaken their case by doing so. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, people and media are not academical publications.
I think that the common name principle generally requires (1) that the person himself used or at least accepted the common name (Max Weber did, Republic of China does not) and (2) that the common name, although being widspread in the population, has some support in academical or official custom; a common name is not automatically synonymous with what one hears at the local pub.
This principle is no sort of 'by people’s preference', but the summa summarum of people, academic custom, official custom, etc. (In cases about persons, it is generally more relevant what people call him/her. In cases about states, it is generally more relevant what the official and the academical call it.) If for example the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States of America use the name Republic of China, Wikipedia should follow international custom.
--- Breadbasket (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Governments of different countries are not neutral, since they maintain ties with Beijing. Academic publications neither use the most accurate names, but the most common names, as long as their subject is nothing relevant to the history and politics of the PRC and/or the ROC, for example, an academic journal on medicine, or a piece of academic work about botany. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

NC-TW straw poll

A straw poll has been opened on the question of whether WP:NC-TW represents current consensus and so should remain a current guideline. Opine at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#NC-TW straw poll. Shrigley (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Much of that rule is one sided and talks only of the Republic of China. What of the People's Republic of China? If we have to say "ROC", shouldn't we also say "PRC"? To say that "Taiwan" has to be "ROC" and "PRC" need only be "China" would represent the politically biased view of the Communist Party of China. So, we should adhere to the first sentence of that rule: "Text should treat the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China." If we are to treat the ROC equally along with the PRC, then the 2 articles have to be called "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China", or "Taiwan" and "China". Anything less would violate the first sentence of that rule.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
What for? 42.3.2.237 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
That's where we used to be. PRC then moved to China; some of us are now trying to take the logical step to follow that and move ROC to Taiwan to finally bring Wikipedia into line the rest of the world in terms of how the terms are commonly used in 2012 for non-specialised references, rather than having it off in its own clique-directed obscurantist fantasy island. N-HH talk/edits 12:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't only about 2012. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but it should reflect language uses in 2012. I support moving it to Taiwan only because that's what most people call it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What do English language sources do? (Please contribute to the list)

I've seen quite a lot of English-language news coverage lately, on the Taiwanese election, and very few sources seem to use the term "Republic of China". I don't know whether this is just selective hearing or not, so here is a short list of sources, organized by how they talk about the recent election. Notice that if they are talking about the election, then we can logically conclude that they are not talking about the island, when they use the term "Taiwan".

I searched the first sources that came to mind, and linked the first article I saw in each case. Please feel free to add more sources, or modify this list. Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources which use the term "Taiwan", with no mention of "Republic of China"

Primarily uses the term "Taiwan", but mentions the term "Republic of China"

Uses both "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" but in different contexts

Primarily uses the term "Republic of China"

Discussion

It seems to me the English-speaking world overwhelming is using the word "Taiwan" to describe this election.. without going into political or historical arguments, it seems to me that the entity which Ma Ying-jeou is president of, is primarily called "Taiwan" in English speaking sources. If others disagree, could they list their sources above? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Being from Australia and having seen that Sydney Morning Herald headline before seeing this debate, I think its headline is the most telling. It says "China welcomes second term for Taiwan's leader". It's 100% clear what they mean by China, and it's not the Republc of... HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that will be the case everywhere. I've personally never disputed Taiwan being the common name. My point was that neutral point of view trumps common name in a problematic case like this. If the majority feels differently, so be it, but I'd just like to be clear. Wendin (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
But what's non-neutral about that Sydney Morning Herald headline? HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This exercise completely misses the point of the dispute. No one can deny here that "Taiwan" is the conventional name of the "Republic of China." However, this is only the case in the present tense, with numerous mentions of Taiwan having nothing to do with the Republic of China and numerous mentions of the Republic of China having nothing to do with Taiwan. As a result, there are, and will be, separate articles for both Taiwan and the Republic of China. The focus of the discussion should be on the makeup of each article to reflect the subtle difference between the two. Establishing that Taiwan is the conventional name of the Republic of China in the present tense won't solve this dispute as making Republic of China redirect to Taiwan would be grossly inaccurate and misleading.--Jiang (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose this will be a useful list to have at any rate, just so we can point to it. What "Republic of China" should redirect to is something that would be determined by looking at what "Republic of China" refers to in English literature. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The present tense is now, and what matters. It is not grossly inaccurate and misleading to refer to something as it is currently used and introduce other terms (historical, official, alternative) in the text, and use those other terms where appropriate. We cannot wholesale replace usage of RoC with Taiwan, but we also can not force RoC where it is no longer used. Nitpicking about where Taiwan isn't a replacement for RoC is a red herring. Article text can use the most context appropriate term. What is misleading are the current article titles as they correspond to real world usage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The edtors nsisting on Republic of Chna here have led to a massve debate at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates with a lot of editors there insisting that policy demands RoC on every occason, not just relevant hstorcal usages. It's caused a really look for Wikipedia. It's the equvalent of having artcles titled Ceylon, Peking and Calcutta. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Eh, there's a difference between arguing for ROC and ROC(T). Users there were in support of ROC(T), which isn't really that contraversial as you're claiming it to be. WP:NC-TW allows (Taiwan) to be added after Republic of China in certain cases, like the case we're dealing with at ITN. Plus, your remark regarding Peking isn't really that supportive of your point, since we have hardline editors insisting that we use terms such as Szechuan cuisine and Peking duck. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 06:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
To me, there's still a huge difference. The name China simply should not appear as part of the current common name. Look at that SMH headline again. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Peking perfectly supports HiLo's point. The fact the duck retains an anachronistic name is an interesting oddity, and has no bearing as to what Peking is now called. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It is slightly different from the Ceylon, Peking etc examples, in that those were straight name usage changes, without the political overlay - eg in that the ROC is purportedly a theoretical and historical entity above and over the modern thing known as "Taiwan". But that's all pretty academic stuff and not relevant to the basic naming point. This article needs to be named per contemporary, common terminology - just as we do for "Beijing" and "Peking Duck". And that WP:NC-TW guideline - which deprecates the use of Taiwan at all other than to refer specifically to the island - needs drastic surgery. I have no idea how it was ever agreed, unless, as so often here, discussions were captured by a small clique operating with their own agendas rather than editors with a broader interest looking at it dispassionately and objectively. N-HH talk/edits 14:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we work on changing that bad policy now? HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

People should respect the law and the reality: the "ROC" should remain at the "Republic of China" page. That is the only objective way. 86.42.24.212 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's anything but objective. It's confusing, and politically manipulative with the goal of maintaining a fight from 60 years ago. It belongs in history books, not here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Supporting Taiwan as a sovereign state, a concept of Taiwanese independence, doesn't belong here.71.184.217.18 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The naming issue has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting Taiwanese independence, or indeed with making some kind of assertion as to whether the place is already de facto independent or not (I for one don't care either way). People dragging politics into this is part of what is making this relatively simple issue so complicated. People see politics in any proposed move to "Taiwan" and claim "POV" when there is none - either because they genuinely lack perspective, or deliberately as a way to veto any change that, for whatever reason, they somehow see as undermining their POV on cross-strait relations. Whatever we call this thing, it's going to have some kind of implication or outrageous bias to someone's eyes - the only thing we need to actually worry about is what the rest of the world usually calls this place/country and - guess what - follow that. N-HH talk/edits 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that in most of the sources, the press follows the governments which use Taiwan to avoid having problem with Beijing. It isn't a convention for the press to decode the nomenclatures of the governments on matters around China. But Wikipedia articles aren't pieces of news stories. They are not only about ongoing current events. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The press follows what the public understands. In my country they don't suck up to governments, I can assure you. I learnt about the recent election from a local quality newspaper which used the headline "China welcomes second term for Taiwan's leader". That event was discussed in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. By your logic, that being a current event, the article should have followed the approach of the media and just used the name Taiwan. Right? HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the scope of this source gathering exercise? We've only listed news articles so far, but this is Wikipedia and not Wikinews, so what is appropriate for news articles may not be as appropriate for encylopedia articles. I could list government publications and websites, vanity webpages, books, and the like - but can we agree on what fits and what doesn't?--Jiang (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my post immediately above? (I do get the distinct impression that some here who have a different perspective choose to ignore posts they don't like. Very poor form.) The immediate need is to clarify that for current events (like reporting the recent election in "In The News") the only sane thing to do is to use the word Taiwan. Nobody is arguing that all the historical articles need to change. Just highlight somewhere in the article that the current common name of the country is Taiwan. There are enough sources above to justify that. Thousands more could probably be found if some here continue to be so bloody stubborn. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
"Nobody is arguing that all the historical articles need to change. Just highlight somewhere in the article that the current common name of the country is Taiwan." [3] This article, as at this moment, is already highlighting the word Taiwan in its first line. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, speaking in the abstract doesn't prevent you from assuming bad faith. I haven't gotten the sense, until your post now, that this section has to exclusively deal with current events. That's maybe what brought you here, but no insults please.
In news articles you will see oversimplified, misleading, and derogatory terms such as "China-friendly Kuomintang" or "pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party" as well as crude characterizations such as "China regards Taiwan as a renegade province" being bandied about. Of course, any one with a deep understanding of the situation (such as academics specializing in political science) will agree that such characterizations are silly, so you will not see such phrases in books and journal articles. My point being that if this exercise is to have any bearing beyond news articles (which we do not write here), then it will be far more useful to look beyond news articles. If it is simply to establish Taiwan as the common name, I don't see what's the dispute. The Hong Kong crowd keep making the same arguments - I don't see how this will persuade them. --Jiang (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The media frequently reflects the language used by the English speaking world. Government websites still have a usefulness though.
UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office John Smith's (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Jiang - "China-friendly Kuomintang" is absolutely appropriate. No three words could better convey the general picture. This is after alll the "CHINESE Nationalist Party" dedicated to the revitalisation of China... Taiwan independence is anathema to the KMT. As for the DPP...."pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party" sums up their position as well as any five words could possibly do. Independence is after all, their central tenet. As for "China regards Taiwan as a renegade province" being "crude". It gets to the nub of the PRC position........After all, it is referred to as "Taiwan Province of China" by the UN and China would certainly not support any change to that....PRC officials regularly reprimand NGOs who refer to Taiwan as anything other than "Taiwan Province of China", its official UN name. Can you Jiang suggest EQUALLY SHORT but more appropriate tags? I'd be interested in your suggestions. Genuinely - they might be interesting. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Separately - I oppose any renaming of the "Republic of China" article. It should remain where it is. The article is about much more than Taiwan Province - it is about the Republic of China. No POV pushing please. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
An encyclopaedia isn't a media outlet. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Well said IP Editor. Not sure WP is an encyclopedia though......Amateurs and POV etc.....but hopefullly its more than an opinions site. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The ones who support this move tell me what is wrong with this article.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very confusing for people who don't know about the Republic of China and may think "Republic of China" as appeared in the article = China. 61.18.170.236 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Commonly known as Taiwan

The state as a whole is referred to as Taiwan. This includes its land, its economy, its people (the Taiwanese), and its government. News reports around the world discussed the reelection of the President of Taiwan. Trying to equate "Taiwan" with a very specific geopolitical term is ridiculous and flies in the face of English usage. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The most important word in that post is the sixth one. It makes it 100% true. Can editors please refrain from mentioning history here? HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There was a dialogue in the edit history:

  • (虞海)“The claimed area (though not active claim) of ROC is not commonly known as Taiwan”
  • (Chipmunkdavis)“The whole claimed area is not commonly known as much at all. The country is known as Taiwan. You'd need significant evidence to refute that”
  • (虞海)“the significant evidence is: Second Sino-Japanese War IS NOT, and WILL NEVER BE commonly known as Taiwan-Japanese War.”
  • (Chipmunkdavis)“History does not determine contemporary usage”
  • I want to reply this here: Second Sino-Japanese War IS the contemporary name of the war. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 17:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Something irrelevant to the contemporary name of the state. Like Peking Duck and Beijing I suppose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You told me “does not determine contemporary usage” and I gave you the contemporary usage. And now you told me its “contemporary name” is irrelevant?!?! 你这是在涮我 You're tricking me! ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
我不是, that's not very good faith. The contemporary name of the war is irrelevant to the contemporary name of the state. 懂吗? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, then would you say: “Second Sino-Japanese War is a war between Taiwan (officially the Republic of China) and the Empire of Japan” (Sorry for the misunderstanding)? Don't forget that ROC brfore 1945 and ROC after 1945 is one single entity. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No you wouldn't, and no-one has suggested that. Don't forget names can change over time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You mean, you would say “Second Sino-Japanese War is a war between China and Japan” in 1945 but will say "Second Sino-Japanese War is now a war between Taiwan and Japan" in 2012. Don't you? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 10:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Your continued obsession with this war completely misses the point. Historical events of course are described historically. I would say "[the] Second Sino-Japanese War [was] a war between China and Japan". Does this change that I call the current country Taiwan? No. You seem to have the mistaken premise that the English language was formulated to be perfect and follow established rules. It wasn't, and doesn't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The issue is that the current country and the past country are the same entity. You're saying "the Second Sino-Japanese War was a war between China and Japan" in 2012, not in 1945 - this is the contemporary usage.

If you do not agree with this, I'd like to ask a question: do you agree the writting manners as engaged in the article Roman Empire reflect the current usage? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 15:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
They have the same title perhaps, but they are very different places. The fact the title is the same is also not an issue, but that's besides the point, as is the contemporary title of a war. Roman Empire? Sure, that reflects current usage, and hey look! The Featured Byzantine Empire article isn't titled Eastern Roman Empire or Roman Empire, despite it being not only the same government, but the same area, and officially still called Rome! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Eastern Roman Empire is called the Byzantine Empire, but this has nothing to do with the contemporary test because both are contemporary name (equally contemporary), but Byzantine Empire is more common [4][5].
My question is: do you think the written manner engaged in Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire reflect contemporary English usage? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 15:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I suppose. They read about right. I'm waiting for a point to this tangent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's the issue: "Roman Empire" was the common name of the state in the
We say "Roman–Parthian War of 161–166 was a war between Roman Empire and Parthian Empire" in 2012
So (if not, how do you know “Roman Empire” is the current common name of the state?) “Roman Empire” is the 2012 common name of the state.
We say "Second Sino-Japanese War was a war between China and Japan" in 2012
So “China” is the 2012 common name of ROC.
Is this analogy acceptable? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 18:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
No. It's nonsense. Nobody I know speaks that way. They make a point of choosing words that are unambiguous in the context of the conversation. Isolated examples without context are pointless. (BTW, your first line of that post is incomplete.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
As HiLo48 says, it's just plain wrong. China isn't the common name of modern Taiwan. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (HiLo48's edit note) Reverted addition that is just plain wrong. The world's media used "Taiwan" when describing the recent elections. That's contemporary AND common.
Saying "Second Sino-Japanese War is now a war between China and Japan" in 2012 is also contemporary AND common. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 05:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an incredibly difficult thread in which to participate. It's obvious that some editors (especially 虞海 in this case) do not use the English language in the same way as I as an Australian and most other editors here use it. Quite frankly, I cannot see how the above post is a coherent response to my quoted Edit summary. It simply makes no sense. How do we overcome such obvious linguistic challenges? HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Since you haven't responded (after inviting me here to comment), I'll add to that. I didn't say anything about the Second Sino-Japanese War. It didn't happen in 2012. I cannot comprehend your point. Can you try to explain please? HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I mean, today, in Jan. 20, 2012, how do you describe the war: "Second Sino-Japanese War is a war between China and Japan" or "Second Sino-Japanese War is a war between Taiwan and Japan", in your “contemporary AND common” usage in Australia? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 06:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Would you say "Second Sino-Japanese War is a war between Taiwan and Japan" in Jan. 20 2012? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 06:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Or, would you say "the state that had a war with Japan is Taiwan" in 2012? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 06:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I would leave it exactly as it has been described since it happened, which was in the past. I have no idea why you think I would want to change it. I really am convinced that you don't understand my idiomatic English. I want to change the CURRENT usage. I want to use the language used by the world's media when describing CURRENT events like the recent election, which is to describe the COUNTRY as TAIWAN. This has absolutely nothing to do with events decades ago. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not asking you how people who lived in US, Australia, decades ago describe the war. I'm asking you how people who lived in US, Australia, now, in 2012 describe the war (very CURRENT). They would say "the state that had a war with Japan is China" in 2012. So note the following points:

  1. They would say "the state that had a war with Japan is China" in 2012 - VERY CURRENT (NOT IN 2011)
  2. They would say "the state that had a war with Japan is China" in 2012 - It is known as China (NOT TAIWAN)
  3. They would say "the state that had a war with Japan is China" in 2012 - VERY CURRENT AGAIN (NOT WAS, BUT IS).

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 06:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Plus, if we get the SVO/SVP structure, it is:
  • They would say "the state that had a war with Japan is China" in 2012
  • =The state is China in 2012.
Get it?
––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 06:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't get it. In fact I have very little idea what you're talking about. You're using a form of English that is not easy for me to understand. You're using the word "current" in a way I would never use it. You're telling me how people would say a sentence I can hardly imagine anyone saying. If I was to discuss a historical war, I would put it in context and make it clear which places I was talking about. I wouldn't say ambiguous things, which seems to be what you're puting in the mouths of others. Stop speculating and obfuscating, and agree with me that the common name of the country today for events today is Taiwan. That is all most of us want to achieve. We don't want to rewrite history. Many countries have changed their name over time. It's easy to state historical information accurately with the right context. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
You made a logic fallacy - you mixed the era of the speakers and readers, and the era of the object being described. For example, when we talk about the Roman Empire, we can't let the Roman Empire be contemporary, instead, we have to find how contemporary people describe the Roman Empire. For the same reason, we cannot let the ROC be contemporary (its duration is 1912~2012, not 1949~2012), instead, we investigate how contemporary people describe the ROC. Do you agree with this? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 08:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
No. You completely fail to comprehend what I am saying, nor I much of whatever you're on about. I really would like to meet you face to face to better understand our cultural/linguistic differences, but right now we're getting nowhere. There really is no point continuing this conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
That's evading the issue. I made it into quite simple a sentense,
  • In 2012, people would say that the state that had a war with Japan in 1940 is China, instead of saying that the state that had a war with Japan in 1940 is Taiwan.
Till now you didn't express whether you agree with this statement. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 09:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't use a sentence like that. I would use "was" rather than "is" and there would be no issue. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
So you must agree the following two statements:
  1. The one who had a discussion with me was HiLo48,
  2. He isn't HiLo48 now.
Do you agree with this? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 13:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody will agree with that because it's nonsense. And irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
So you are saying that these two statements are true
  1. Taiwan, last year, celebrated its 100th anniversary.
  2. Republic of China, last year, celebrated its 100th anniversary.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
No. I am not saying that. I am saying the words of mine you can see on this page. Do NOT try to put other words in my mouth. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I was asking a simple question. Are these two statements true?Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Your question is irrelevant because we're not proposing a blanket replace-all ROC->Taiwan in every article ever. We're not robots, we don't have to create sentences like the ones you wrote. A more appropriate sentence would be "Taiwan, last year, celebrated the ROC's 100th anniversary". But since you seem convinced that the two sentences can't possibly ever by synonymous, here's a review of a Google search for Taiwan celebrates 100 years that shows plenty of sources referring to it as just plain 'Taiwan' even in that context. Respectfully, Typhoon, the way to win the anti-Taiwan side of this argument is not to use strawmen like this, they tend to harm your cause more than support it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
You are implying that Taiwan is a sovereign state are you not? I am not anti-Taiwan and, respectively, if the DDP successfully changed the Republic of China to Republic of Taiwan then there wouldn't be an issue because Taiwan would be a sovereign state. But the facts of matter are that the Republic of China does exist and has existed since the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty. Taiwan a hundred years ago was a colonial possession of the Empire of Japan. While, on China, the Chinese had finished their Xinhai Revolution that overthrew the Qing Dynasty and established the Republic of China. The Republic of China is clearly a sovereign state. We are not arguing the fact that ROC is commonly known as Taiwan today. But we are arguing that stating Taiwan is a sovereign state is wrong because it doesn't exist, it's a concept. The entire purpose of Taiwanese independence is to make Taiwan a sovereign state which the Republic of China will either become a defunct nation or a government-in-exile.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The point of Taiwanese independence is to make Taiwan an official, recognised sovereign state. At the moment Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state with minimal international recognition. Remember that 'Taiwan' is a common name for 'Republic of China' in the majority of English language sources, including in many official press releases from the Taiwanese GIO office itself. Sovereign states are defined by international law as having A) a permanent population, B) a defined territory, C) a government, and D) the ability to enter into relations with the other states. Taiwan matches all of these criteria and is a sovereign state by definition. The fact that China and Taiwan each respectively claim each other's territory or that numerous members of the international community refuse to enter into formal relations with Taiwan doesn't affect the definition. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China is a sovereign state or are you ignoring that fact? If the Republic of China had a chance to regain Mainland China, they would jump at it. Again we are not arguing that "Taiwan" is the common name of the Republic of China which is stated in the article. We are arguing that stating Taiwan is a sovereign state is a concept, an idea of Taiwanese independence. Taiwan is a sovereign state in definition doesn't matter either it is or it isn't. Also saying in definition is different than saying that it actually "is". Both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China view that they are the true China which is stated in these articles Two Chinas, One-China policy and 1992 Consensus. If we don't support or continue to ignore these articles might as well delete them because we are going against the purpose of those articles.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me see if I can summarize the situation here. There are 3 statements:
  1. Republic of China is a sovereign state
  2. Taiwan is a sovereign state
  3. The common name of the Republic of China is Taiwan
And as far as I can understand, Typhoonstorm accepts 1 and 3, but does not accept 2? Does anyone else get the impression that this discussion is going in circles? It may be partially caused by the fact that different people mean slightly different things when they use the word "Taiwan". Remember that sometimes (indeed, usually) when people say "Taiwan", they mean the modern (country / nation / state / entity) officially known as the "Republic of China". On the other hand, occasionally people mean something else. *sigh* Mlm42 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Why can't you read those articles I mention to have general grasp on the situation that Jpech95's move will present on Taiwan's political status and all of this articles that relate to Taiwan's political status and the Two China States. I know many of you mean well in this move but as a fellow American you need to read these articles that we have presented to you to have a general understanding of this complicated issue. You all need to realize that implying Taiwan is sovereign state is going against those articles' purpose to inform the reader about Taiwan's political status and why it is complicated.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
We've all read the articles. What needs to be done is forgetting the baggage, which is subjective, and following external sources. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh like this article from the Republic of China's president.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A politician saying something doesn't mean action. Also fascinatingly, that article manages to use Taiwan as a name for the state, so there you go. "Ma said despite the stipulation of the ROC Constitution, Taiwan cannot recognize the existence of another country, nor does China want to recognize Taiwan." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
A politician that is still the president of the ROC. Ma clearly stated "the ROC “definitely is an independent sovereign state, and mainland [sic] China is also part of the territory of the ROC.”. And what do you mean by action? Action to retake the Mainland China?Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Something like that; it's a very dead war. In the end, reliable sources treat the two (ROC and Taiwan) as synonymous in modern contexts, with the term ROC used occasionally in reference to specific legal documents/positions or when discussing the history of the civil war, and even then they'll use Taiwan in the same article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Seeing that's what you mean by "action" which is clearly stating your obvious lack of knowledge or understanding of this issue and of what war would bring between the PRC and the ROC today; I see no point in arguing against ignorance anymore.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's do try to remember to be civil here. I don't see anything wrong with Chipmunkdavis' comment. It's true that when real action is fundamentally out of the question, whether it be for ethical reasons or because such action would result in greater loss than it would gain, it becomes attractive for politicians to 'talk big' and posture for their own political gain, knowing full-well that they will never be called upon to actually carry through with their talk. If it's your view that politicians only ever say things they mean and never talk up their stance for point-scoring amongst their own voting public, it may be that you have some holes in your understanding of political situations like this one yourself. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
He said he read all the articles on this issue. He should know very clearly why the ROC can't do that today and what would happen if it even attempts to regain the Mainland China today. I presume you understand the Anti-Secession Law by the PRC if you don't here. The main purpose of the law is to invade the ROC if peaceful reunification is no longer possible or if Taiwan declares independence. The PRC has missile sites in Fujian province which are aimmed at Taiwan and can destroy all major Republic of China cities leaving many people dead. If you think I can act civil after that; you are wrong and that is why I am withdrawing myself from this issue until I can control my anger toward this ignorance.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
He actually did emphasise the One China Policy again, and spelt out clearly that One China means the ROC. Are we going to conclude that he declares Taiwan to be China? 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What about:

  • Statement 1: Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, is a country in East Asia founded in 1912, succeeding the Ching Dynasty of China. It fought the Second Sino-Japanese War with Japan from 1931 to 1945. It lost its seat in the United Nations in 1971.
  • Statement 2: The Republic of China, commonly known since the 1970s after its largest island as Taiwan, is a country in East Asia founded in 1912, succeeding the Ching Dynasty of China. It fought the Second Sino-Japanese War with Japan from 1931 to 1945. It lost its seat in the United Nations in 1971.

Which statement is more accurate and encyclopedic? 61.18.170.236 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither is very good. As I'm sure you would agree, it needs more detail to properly explain the history. But when seeking a brief description of modern day events, such as the recent elections, Taiwan is a perfectly good name for the country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with HiLo. With Taiwan as the main title of the article, the sentence would be rewritten to avoid confusion. This is another strawman argument that keeps coming up here, that somehow we would do a blanket change of all instances of 'Republic of China' to 'Taiwan' without looking at the articles or sentences. It's my reading that the main proponents of change are interested both in changing the title of the article in line with our policies (such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE), but also to change the content of the respective articles to clear up any apparent confusion. Nobody here, as far as I can see, is proposing a straight up name change and nothing else, so putting forward arguments against something we're not proposing to do is wasted effort. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that even within Taiwan the people is using the word "Taiwan" in the same manner as people do with "England" or "Holland". It isn't uncommon for exported products from Taiwan to the west to be labelled "Made in Taiwan, R.O.C.", and in fact a lot more often than "Made in Scotland, UK" or "Product of Scotland, UK". 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I oppose any renaming of the "Republic of China" article. It should remain where it is. The article is about much more than Taiwan Province - it is about the Republic of China. No POV pushing please. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then, you must be totally happy with Chipmunkdavis' comment, because he hasn't proposed renaming the article. Why the off-topic post? HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any POV pushing here. It's widely accepted even by many proponents of the ROC name that Taiwan is the common name of the country. It's been shown that even official press releases from the GIO use Taiwan as a synonym for the country and not just the province. The debate seems to be focused on whether the common name (along with things like WP:POVTITLE to address that realistically, no title is going to please everyone) is sufficient grounds for renaming the article, for which my view is yes. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been proposed to move the island article from Taiwan to a name that shows that the article is about an island. Also it is suggested to move the dab to Taiwan. Then it could prominently be explained that the term Taiwan can refer mainly to 5 things: the island, the island group, any of the two provinces and a country, the ROC. That was chronological order I think. See more at: Talk:Taiwan_(disambiguation)#Move_request. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Republic of China" is far more than just Taiwan Province. Hence there should be no change. The article has the right name - "Republic of China".86.41.15.41 (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No change is preferable to any of these suggestions. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
As the title of this thread suggests, the Republic of China, as it currently exists in any real sense, is indeed commonly known as Taiwan. Hence this page should be titled "Taiwan" (and, if necessary, the more historical material removed to "History of the Republic of China") and references to the modern state elsewhere on WP should be switched to "Taiwan" rather than the obscure and generally unused in 2012 "Republic of China". Stuff about the island more specifically can live at "Taiwan (island)". WP editors - IP or pseudonymous account-holders - insisting that archaic and obscure terminology is nevertheless "right" without offering serious arguments count for not very much I'm afraid. N-HH talk/edits 23:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
But isn't the physical island itself also commonly known as Taiwan? If so, then for a topic to be commonly known as Taiwan isn't sufficient reason for that topic's article to be named "Taiwan".

I suggest the primary topic for "Taiwan", if there is one, isn't the state nor the physical island, but the place. Do we have an article about that place? Maybe we should have an article about the place named Taiwan, another one named Republic of China which focuses on the government of Taiwan (and its history), and keep Taiwan (island) as being about the physical island itself. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The place, the state and the island are all commonly called "Taiwan". I suggest that they should should be treated as a single (and therefore primary) topic, just as we do with other with other island states like Iceland, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and Cuba. In each of those cases the state also includes some minor islands, but the difference is not considered sufficient to justify separate articles. Kanguole 09:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Be careful, or you'll find yourself mired down as in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Those islands are part of Iceland, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and Cuba respectively. Some of the islands of the ROC are part of Taiwan, some of the islands aren't part of Taiwan. Hawaii doesn't become part of North America just because it is part of America. French Guiana isn't part of Europe although it is part of France and the European Union. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here, but you introduced a grammatical error in addition to whatever the apparent disagreement is. I went ahead and undid the change until you guys can sort things out on here. Wendin (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous users on this talk page

It seems to me that most of the anonymous users posting to this talk page are 1) Single-purpose accounts, and 2) in agreement with each other. I'm concerned that their actions may be lowering the quality and/or neutrality of the discussions on this talk page. Would it be appropriate for us to tag these users with the template {{Spa}}, warning others that these users have "made few or no other edits outside this topic."? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticize the content, not the content poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree; and I don't mean to criticize. Please read the essay Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Mlm42 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Affecting IP address: # 96.40.129.169 # 59.148.146.237 # 1.65.194.29 # 86.41.15.41 ? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 11:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I am an IP editor; Hope you don't have any issues with me. Hope this isn't a whitch hunt of some sort. It is understandable that some editors prefer to publicise their IP addres....Not sure if that can call be called "anonymous".... 86.41.15.41 (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I've just spotted that my IP address is mentioned above. Why? Please be specific. If you have an issue with my Edits, please spell out your issue. I can't see what I have done wrong. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I completely oppose your attempt to demonise me, amongst these other editors (about whom I don't know anything). I am interested in China and do edit there. Stop trying to demonise me because I am interested in China.....There is nothing wrong with that. I sometimes edit other articles...I don't edit articles much though...mostly the talk pages because the Articles are so sensitive and all changes require consensus. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows IP Editors - respect that

I am starting this new subsection on the Talk page because an Editor above wants to try to attach some kind of tag to my edits. Wikipedia allows IP editors. Some websites do not. WP does. Please respect that and simply extend the same courtesy to those who choose to edit as IP editors as those who choose to set up usernames. There should not be a problem: only respectful interaction. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

86.41.15.41, as of right now, you have made a total of 21 edits, with your first edit being on January 17, 2012, on this talk page. I'm not saying you have done anything wrong, and contributions from new users are welcome. But I think it would be wise to point out to other editors that as such a new user, you may not be as familiar with the policies, guidelines, and conventions of Wikipedia as more experienced editors; furthermore single-purpose accounts seem more likely to hold very strong positions, which may or may not reflect the opinions of others. I don't mean to demonize, I just think we should be making informed decisions about where consensus actually lies. Hence my suggestion to tag SPA posts.
It would be nice if some non-anonymous users weighed in on this thread.. Mlm42 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
In this particular topic area, there has been a very long running problem with a particular banned user socking with large amounts of IP addresses, so some people might be a little hypersensitive. Beyond that, I'd read over what Mlm42 says above, as it's sage advice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems reasonable enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll just note here that while several of the IP addresses weighing in on these topics come from Hong Kong, 86.41.15.41 is registered to an ADSL address pool for Eircom in Ireland. This doesn't change the fact that it's still essentially a SPA, of course, but it does lend some credence to the notion of them being separate from the other IP contributors. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I read over the page on single-purpose accounts and some related pages to familiarize myself a bit before commenting, and I'd like to point out that there is a notice at the top of the page about this discussion. That's how I became involved. The same is probably true for many other people, anonymous or otherwise. Wendin (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights - You may tink you are being reasonable but you are not. Wikipedia allows so called "anonymous" IP editors (how I am more anonymous than you I cannot see) to edit. There is no Wikipedia policy of doing what you propose - trying to pigeon hole editors / demonise them. As you rightly point out I have been editing for less than one month, all the time so far on Chinese related topics. Next monthh I could decide to turn my attention to Mexico. What business is it of yours to try to put in place a departure from the normal Wikipedia rules of respecting the right of editors to edit as IP addresses. I have done nothihg wrong and wish to be treated in the regular, normal Wikipedia way. Please desist in trying to do what you have suggested. As another editor has rightly pointed out, I am certainly not the same editor as some other IP editors (who edit from another jurisdication(s)). 86.45.59.218 (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
At the same time, 86.*, you should be aware that the China-Taiwan area of Wikipedia is moderately controversial, similar to (but not as bad as) Israel-Palestine or the Ireland/Troubles areas. While we make our best efforts to ensure everyone can contribute, it's inevitable that IP editors are going to be inadvertently or unavoidably caught up in protective measures. There's no obligation for you to register an account here, but it does have some strong advantages. Firstly, you won't be mistaken for another IP user such as may have happened here on this talk page. Secondly, all of your edits will be collected together under just one name for attribution, so you don't have to worry about people wondering if you're the same as some other IP editor in the event your IP address changes, or if you edit from multiple locations like work, mobile and home. Thirdly, in the event that any of our articles or talk pages that you're interested in are semi-protected, this means IP editors won't be able to edit at all, but registered editors can.
Registered accounts are still essentially anonymous, but having them makes things a bit easier on other editors trying to keep track of conversations or to differentiate you from editors who are looking to circumvent bans or cause mischief. It's not required, but I'd certainly encourage you to look into what having an account on Wikipedia entails, and consider whether you might be interested in having one. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Part of the Wikipedia way is to respect each other - I choose not to register an account; that's allowed on WP. All I ask is that that be respected without interference. If I break rules, of course, that can be taken up - just like it could be with any other editor (registered or IP). I am not breaking rules and I think most editors here accept that I don't have to register or have my edits tagged. I think this discussion may be at a natural end. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course you don't have to register an account, but during big discussions that involve knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and conventions, Single-purpose accounts shouldn't expect to be treated equally to more experienced users. The reality is that not all "votes" are equal.. that's a feature of Wikipedia's consensus decision-making process. Mlm42 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, as the IP should note, their address has changed, so their previous statements are no longer attributed to them. This doesn't happen to logged in users. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
My comment to that IP editor is that this is the Discussion page. Other editors have now given you excellent reasons why it's a good idea to register. Your response is fundamentally "I don't HAVE to. I don't want to. I won't." You have failed to Discuss the points they made. That's rude. It's NOT showing good faith. While it's true that you don't have to register, you would gain considerable credibility if you did. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
That means you have admitted that you have biases towards comments made by IP editors. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
You probably mean "biases AGAINST comments made by IP editors", but no, I find the REASONS given by others above compelling and agree with them. A bias would involve no rational reasons. In particular, when there are multiple participants in a discussion, it's much easier to follow if they have names, rather than just IP addresses. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It may be easier to follow discussions where editors have names, but established Wikipedia practice is to allow IP editors to edit. Period.
Re. "Of course you don't have to register an account, but during big discussions that involve knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and conventions, [Hold On; You are assuming that IP editors don't have that knowledge etc; that's not a logical assumption] Single-purpose accounts [You assume IP editors who show up for two weeks are "single purpose" - they may have moved address and have edited many times before etc...more illogical assumptions] shouldn't expect to be treated equally to more experienced users.[Now you are calling for discrimination against IP editors - without logical reason] The reality is that not all "votes" are equal.. that's a feature of Wikipedia's consensus decision-making process. [Agreed votes should be equal]. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please make some moves (part 1)

There is currently at least a 3-way overlap between Taiwan, Republic of China, Republic of China (1912-1949). Then a 2-way overlap with the timeline articles 2011 in Taiwan, 2011 in the Republic of China. After that there are thousands of historical articles still pointing to China which is really the "People's Republic of China". For example Ulysses S. Grant never went to the "PRC->China". He went to one of the older dynasties and the link should be fixed. Benjwong (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't fix overlap with moves. The solution is merges, in particular of Taiwan and the post-1949 state on the island (and a few much smaller islands). Kanguole 09:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Some kind of merge is needed. Benjwong (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
A handful of the smaller islands of the Republic of China aren't part of Taiwan. 61.18.170.236 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, just as there are similar handfuls of smaller islands in the Republic of Iceland, the Republic of Madagascar, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Republic of Cuba. In each case the difference isn't considered sufficient to justify separate articles. Kanguole 11:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are you saying the same thing twice? You did it already at 19:15, 20 January 2012. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Are 1991 in Russia and 1991 in the Soviet Union overlapped? Are RSFSR and Soviet Union overlapped? Are Great Britain and United Kingdom overlapped? 61.18.170.236 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The obvious answer is: no, you can't move or merge them. Any attempt to equate "Republic of China" is misguided for three reasons:

  1. Republic of China, the political entity, controls Taiwan and a few other islands;
  2. ROC continues to lay claim to mainland China until today, according to their constitution;
  3. Historical: ROC controlled all of mainland China as well between 1912 and 1949.

Republic of China (1912-1949) exists as a separate article in the same sense that many historically significant temporal subdivisions of political regimes. This is simply content forking for the sake of clarity of presentation, and is not a problem. Deryck C. 14:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe your point (1) is misleading, because "Taiwan" could refer to either the country or the island.. but it usually refers to the country, when it is used in the English language. Consider the Google search results for:
  1. "Kinmen, Taiwan" - 109,000 hits.
  2. "Kinmen, Republic of China" - 9,150 hits.
Any evidence I've seen so far suggests that the term "Taiwan", with no further qualifiers, usually refers to the entity officially known as the Republic of China, and it does not usually refer to the island (in spite of the current Wikipedia article arrangement). So it is very confusing when editors here use the term "Taiwan" to refer only to the island.. since that is contrary to regular usage. Mlm42 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Deryck can you name any other example like Republic of China (1912-1949)? I don't think there's any. The most comparable case would perhaps be West Germany, which is indeed "Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990)". 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It's unclear which talk page section relates to the proposed move banner on the article so I'll post here. Obviously, for reasons well outlined above by Deryck Chan this is an impractical suggestion - and quite simply the state is called "Republic of China", not "Taiwan". Wikipedia needs an article on both the state and the island, and the current naming of the two articles is the only viable solution. There is a notice at the top of Taiwan which reads This article is about the island. For the state governing it which is also commonly called "Taiwan", see Republic of China. For other uses, see Taiwan (disambiguation). - this is sufficient such that readers looking for an article on the state can get there in a click. Internal links concerning the state lead to Republic of China (or should be corrected if they do not do so). -- LukeSurl t c 10:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • To restate that more briefly - "We can't change it because we haven't changed it yet." HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I disagree with your summation! My statement on internal links refers to the fact that someone clicking links internally within Wikipedia is unlikely to end up at Taiwan when they wish to view Republic of China. The current naming of articles (with disambiguation headers) is, in my opinion, the optimal arrangement. LukeSurl t c 11:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Thereby completely ignoring the extremely well sourced fact that most people and media round the world call the country Taiwan today. Wikipedia's retention of the names from the political battles of half a century ago just makes us look silly. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
          • WP:GOOGLEHITS somewhat relates here. Taiwan is indeed the more common term, however the terms "Taiwan" and "Republic of China", though related, are not 100% interchangeable. "Republic of China" is a better name for this article because it:
            Is the official name of the state in English.
            It refers to the entire state, and not just the main island.
            Reflects the history of the state in terms of its previous governance of the China region.
            Reflects the current claims of the state, claims which continue to dominate its foreign policy.
            "Taiwan" refers to an territory whose sovereignty is disputed between two states, a dispute which is still active. Republic of China is one of the states that contests this. -- LukeSurl t c 11:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
They're quite interchangeable.
  • We don't use WP:Official names, we use WP:Common names.
  • Taiwan also refers to the entire state.
  • History is dealt in the history section.
  • I'd like to see some serious evidence that the ROC has made any recent attempts to gain the mainland, let alone that this dominantes foreign policy. Even with this, why pick a name with the explicit purpose of reflecting something? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • LukeSurl - Until YOU address the common name issue, which is the fundamental reason for this discussion, you are just spouting political dogma, not discussing. HiLo48 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll also point out, again, that the ROC GIO office uses the term Taiwan to refer to the country, not just the island, in a number of its press releases. If the ROC government finds it acceptable to use the word Taiwan in reference to the country, and it's clearly used by the vast majority of English language sources, why is there such resistance here? Are you guys looking at this from a neutral, policy-based perspective or are you arguing personal politics? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I hope I don't come across as dogmatic (I'm an Englishman from Norwich with no opinion on the politics of the region). What I am more is pedantic - my personal preference is for article titles that prioritise accuracy. Although "Taiwan" is the more common term, when talking about the state, the more formal "Republic of China" is the more accurate description of the entity described in the article. It's a balancing act in all such articles, but, for what it's worth, I prefer in this case to maintain the current situation for the names of the articles on the state and the island. The state described in the article was the government of the whole China region until the Chinese Civil War reduced its territory to the islands. Considering this article's history section starts in 1912 it makes sense to have the article title as something which is applicable to the entire time period discussed (essentially "Taiwan" is the current common name, but for much of the 20th century the common name would have been China). Lastly, in terms of neutrality, as both the PRC and the ROC assert claims over "China" it seems neutral to have both states articles' names to refer to "China", rather than delineate one to the island of Taiwan. LukeSurl t c 19:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea of taking "claims" into account when deciding on what name to use for a country is just nonsensical. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I continue to find the argument that taking a position contrary to the rest of the english speaking world is neutral to be an unconvincing one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
LukeSurl, accuracy is certainly an important aspect of Wikipedia, but its importance is more focused on article content, rather than article titles. On Wikipedia, an article title is basically just a bit of text intended for locating the right article. This is why our WP:COMMONNAME policy exists, and why we have articles at United States instead of United States of America, Mexico instead of United Mexican States, Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton, and countless other articles. These are clear indicators that the common name of a subject typically trumps more accurate names. In the case of the United States, there's even ambiguity there between which 'United States' is being referred to, America or Mexico.
This basically stems from the purpose and limitations of the article title. The limitations, firstly, are that we cannot convey the subtleties, nuances and controversies of the name of a subject in its article title. There just simply isn't enough space. Secondly, the purpose of the article title is to locate the article, not to educate the reader on the article's subject. This means that factors such as what the reader is going to type in when searching for the article outweigh factors of education, which are left to the article's content to achieve where it has much more space to explain things.
This is why proponents of the change have put forward overwhelming evidence that the name Taiwan is dominant in English language sources, and is even used in official press releases from the ROC's GIO (Government Information Office). Looking at other article title changes across the project, it becomes clear that WP:COMMONNAME is held to be a strong argument in favour of particular titles, even in cases where I disagree (such as a recent change from Universal Serial Bus to the more common, but less precise, USB). TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
But it is not just a question of common names. Can you imagine there is an article on "Bill Clinton" and "William Jefferson Clinton" that are basically about the exact same topic. Let me break this down for those who are new to this topic. The umbrella term is NOT Taiwan. The umbrella term is China, which now belongs exclusively to the PRC article. Benjwong (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Absolute rubbish. According to common usage the world over, the umbrella term today is Taiwan. Only those still fighting an impossible war from over half a centruy ago think otherwise. Your view is actually a fringe one. It's time for you war lovers to drop the dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Clearly you are in this discussion because the umbrella term China no longer covers the Republic of China. You are not in this discussion because you want to call it Taiwan all of a sudden in 2012. People have wanted to call it Taiwan officially since the days of early independence, it is nothing new. Benjwong (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Making assumptions about why people are involved in the discussion isn't productive (and I'm guilty of it myself at times so I'm not waggling my finger at you). You said 'because the umbrella term China no longer covers the Republic of China' and you're essentially correct. But that's not an ideology that proponents of the move are trying to push, it's an observable fact in the majority of English language material. Wikipedia's article on the PRC was moved to China with respect for the fact that even though some people may not like it, the way a term is used by the majority of sources is the way Wikipedia determines what term to use itself. Remember, we reflect our sources and our policies are designed to enforce or encourage that. WP:COMMONNAME was a very strong deciding factor in the PRC->China move and it's a strong argument here as well. That's not coming from an ideological perspective of taking sides in the great PRC-ROC war of support, it's coming from a simple 'these are our rules and this article should also change to be in line with those rules' perspective. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


(After an Edit conflict) Yes, TechnoSymbiosis is right. You really shouldn't make assumptions. I am in this discussion because a major newspaper in my country (regarded as an excellent source across Wikipedia) posted a headline last week saying "China welcomes second term for Taiwan's leader". It was 100% clear what it meant. I became involved in a heated discussion at In The News where some editors said we couldn't say Taiwan, even though similar stories the world over used that name. I thought that not using the name Taiwan was stupid, and still do. It was suggested that those of us with that different viewpoint come here to discuss it. Can you discuss the popular name please? HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Look, I am completely ok with using the name "Taiwan" all the way across and leave ROC as nothing more than a historic name after the PRC->China move. But people are saying those islands managed by ROC government keeps the ROC name legitimate. If you want to match it to real life situations, Taiwanese haven't called themselves Chinese for a long time. Benjwong (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I realise that former president Chen Shui-bian was from a different political party with a different ideology to the current leadership of Taiwan, but I thought this article, originally from the Financial Times and republished on the GIO government website, contains a very interesting statement from Chen. Quoted:
"Similarly, China is carrying out a united front campaign against Taiwan which I summarize as a "fivefold transformation" policy-to belittle, marginalize, and localize Taiwan, delegitimize Taiwan's government, and deny the sovereignty of Taiwan. These are all moves to change and damage the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan is a sovereign nation. It is by no means subordinate to the People's Republic of China, nor is it a part or a province of the PRC. Taiwan is a country. We have governmental authority and enjoy national sovereignty. Nonetheless, China is using its fivefold united front tactics in an attempt to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait." (emphasis mine)
There are several other articles on the GIO website explicitly stating that Taiwan is a country, and there are countless other articles on the GIO website showing that even in official capacity, Taiwan is used in reference to the country itself just as much as Republic of China is. In the end, I suppose I find it confusing that press releases from the era of DPP rule use Taiwan in reference to the country, and press releases from the era of KMT rule use Taiwan in reference to the country, but despite this apparent bipartisan support for use of the term, and despite its vast widespread acceptance in the English language, somehow the term is still unacceptable to name an encyclopedia article? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This is actually quite a controversial issue in Taiwanese domestic politics. The DPP will assert "Taiwan is an independent country" while the KMT will assert "The Republic of China is an independent country." These are conceptually different issues, and the articles you quoted come from the DPP. The KMT will not assert that Taiwan is an independent country without invoking the Republic of China, nor will it assert that Taiwan is independent relative to the mainland. But what does this have anything to do with where the countries template should reside? This does not counter the fact that Taiwan is the common name of the Republic of China, but suggests that we should be careful in distinguishing the use of these terms in article text.--Jiang (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Considering how many years the KMT has been winning the election, "ROC is an independent country" is still a very weak stance. Benjwong (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Trying to analyze the strength of a political actor's arguments does not factor into our considerations of what an article should be named or how we should be using particular proper names in article text. The policy remains NPOV, common name, and accuracy. I don't see your point. It is never Wikipedia's position to assert that either "ROC is an independent country" or that "Taiwan is an independent country" or the contrary of these two statements on the basis of our understanding of the "strength" of a particular position; it is Wikipedia's position to use the terms Republic of China and Taiwan in a manner that is sensitive of the way the involved parties use and regard these terms.--Jiang (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
You have explained that "Republic of China" is the name of the country preferred by one of the major political groups in the country, and "Taiwan" the preference of the other. The clear implication is that neither term can be called neutral. (Not that anyone has claimed that "Taiwan" is neutral, just common.) Kanguole 12:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I claim that for the vast majority of users of the name Taiwan is completely neutral. In using it they make no judgement whatsoever on historical political issues. To them, it's JUST the name of the country. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I actually agree with Kanguole that both names carry their share of political baggage. We've seen it even in this discussion, with some editors supporting or opposing particular names with what appears to be an underlying political motivation rather than an objective assessment of Wikipedia's policies. I do think this article title is a good example of something WP:POVTITLE is intended to help resolve, where in the event that all available titles are in some way controversial, we should go with the most commonly used name even though that name may be regarded by some editors as POV. I see this as strengthening the argument to rename the article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Techno's point about COMMONNAME is a good one. I agree wholeheartedly with it. John Smith's (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
There might be an accuracy issue here. After ROC retreated to Taiwan island, the view was still "ROC is China" for a long time. By the time independence movements came up, the view was shifted to "Taiwan is an independent country". You might want to doublecheck that "ROC is an independent country" is actually a later view created when they realize taking back the mainland was impossible. Benjwong (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it Taiwanese New Year or Chinese New Year? [6] [7] [8] 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly no one dares answer this question. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It's Chinese New Year, but as with the Peking Duck and Beijing analogy, it's completely irrelevant. CMD (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I supposed "Chinese" isn't an old name for "Taiwanese". 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I am all for making a turn to refer to Taiwan very consistently across all articles. But not for the five-fold transformation reason you listed above OR even WPCommonnames. I know for a fact PRC citizens wants that "full claim". When you look on a map, PRC is 95-100% of geographic China. There is no reason why we should present ROC as an equal like 50-50%. And that's especially if no ROC president in the past 20 years have shown any desire to take back the mainland. So it only seems fair to have PRC be China, and forget that umbrella term. NC-TW straw poll discussed some of those changes. After moving PRC -> China, to keep up with the times it makes sense to start modifying the naming convention. Benjwong (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The ROC presidents didn't take back the mainland. But they hadn't either declared independence from China no matter what "China" means. Does it make Taiwan no longer part of "China"? 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
About locating articles rather than educating. This can be done simply by redirects and disambiguation pages. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It can (and should) also be done with our article naming policies, which would put the article at Taiwan. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't support moving around the Chinese articles. The Republic of China is far more than just Taiwan Province and its name on Wikipedia rightly reflects that at present. 86.45.59.218 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And there's another unhelpful post which ignores or fails to comment on the primary reason for our discussion here. Taiwan is the common name for the whole country the world over. There's something very odd about people who won't comment on the reason this thread exists at all. HiLo48 (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Holland is the common name of the Netherlands and when people say it, they mean the whole country. England is also the common name of the UK and when people say so, they mean the whole of the UK. We did it too with Russia. We did mean the rest of the USSR. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that Holland and England are "the common name" for the Netherlands and the UK? As for Russia/USSR, that's historical, so not truly important. CMD (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course they have no such evidence, because it's simply not true. England is not the "common name" for the UK. And on the rare occasions when it is seen, it is a manifest error. You won't find serious, reputable sources mixing the two up. By contrast, you nearly always do find the entity under discussion here referred to as "Taiwan", and details about it in country profiles etc universally filed under "Taiwan". There comes a point when people have to stop claiming that the rest of the world is "wrong" and that one or two WP editors alone know the truth and can veto us from using the terminology the rest of the world has long defined and accepted come 2012. (Holland was more common I suspect for the Netherlands, but it's much less often seen now; and, again, serious sources would avoid the error. Britain/UK is where you might be able to more reasonably argue the toss about common name). N-HH talk/edits 12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Try look for references to Elizabeth II as "Queen of England", or to Queen Beatrix as "Queen of Holland". And it isn't uncommon to see references like "Edinburgh, England", "Glasgow, England", "Cardiff, England" or "Friesland, Holland". These are of course not as common as Taiwan, given the fact that "Taiwan" is often a euphemism of "Republic of China" as well. Governments that recognise Beijing cannot say "Republic of China" at all. "Taiwan" is more than just another common name like England or Holland but that's far beyond neutral point of view already. 147.8.102.148 (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
See previous answer re "manifest error". Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
If those were manifest error, Taiwan would be an extreme example of manifest error. 147.8.102.79 (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
See previous answer re anon wikipedia editors being right and knowing "the truth", and the rest of the world being "wrong". N-HH talk/edits 11:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please make some moves (part 2)

I can consolidate a number of almost duplicate timeline articles like 2011 in Taiwan and 2011 in the Republic of China. While the above discussion can still go on. I can still go ahead and merge them to something like 2011 in the Republic of China (Taiwan). If no one objects, I will make these changes in a few days. After that we can keep 1 timeline artcle for the region instead of 2. Benjwong (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. I'm not sure why there are two separate timeline articles to begin with. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
As "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is not consistent with the "Republic of China" name of this article, I don't really like the suggestion. That said, having two separate paralell articles is silly so I think its better than that. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Benjwong. Whatever we do end up calling these articles, there shouldn't be this duplication. LukeSurl t c 00:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
What had you done? Could you list them out briefly? 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge them to 2011 in the Free area of the Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.35.85.132 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For the Republic of China in 2011/2012, we consider it to exist only within its Free Area. We have a separate article on the "Free Area" because we need to explain that specific term. The Free Area isn't, in terms of geographical territory, a subset of the ROC as a whole. They are coterminous. 61.18.170.137 (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
To summarize then, the articles prior to 1949 will be 1948 in the Republic of China, 1949 in the Republic of China etc. The articles after that, we begin with 1950 in the Free area of the Republic of China all the way up to 2012 in the Free area of the Republic of China. Is everyone ok with this? Keep in mind these are timeline lists, not exactly country articles. Benjwong (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think 1950 in the Republic of China (Taiwan) would be less confusing to readers. Kanguole 08:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely not "Free area of ..", especially for 2012 and more recent years, surely. And, if this article ends up as "Taiwan" - as it should - I don't see how those more recent timeline articles at least could or should be at anything other than simply "20xx in Taiwan". The 50s-70s are admittedly more difficult, and there is an argument that we should be consistent across the years; and, if not, a debate about when we'd switch. Alternatively/anyway, "xxx in Republic of China (Taiwan)" or " .. Taiwan (Republic of China)" would make sense, for now at least I guess, so that any duplication can be dealt with. N-HH talk/edits 09:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Shall we go on to merge 1990 in Russia and 1990 in Soviet Union, and all those articles before 1990? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Russia didn't make up basically all of the USSR. CMD (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Neither did Taiwan make up all of the ROC, no matter in 1946, 1950 or 2012. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It makes up so much of it that there is not nearly enough topic matter to justify two separate articles. CMD (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps.., perhaps not. Anyhow we may actually follow the UK example. For 1800 and the years prior, it's #### in Great Britain. From 1801 onwards, it's #### in the United Kingdom. In the case of the ROC and Taiwan, Taiwan was a province that covered the entire chain of islands (which included Taipei, Kaohsiung, the Pescadores, etc., and excluded Kinmen, Pratas, etc.) between 1945 and 1949, and before 1895, and a Japanese colony between 1895 and 1945, and therefore a clearly defined entity with clearly defined borders. From 1949 onwards, it has been the "massive amount"[9] of the ROC, as much as Great Britain has been to the UK from 1801 onwards. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Shall we suggest this to the Taiwan WikiProject? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Following the UK example seems like a good idea. CMD (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. As does asking the Taiwan wikiproject. If there was a "Republic of China" project, we could ask them too, but oddly, there appears not to be such a thing. Perhaps we should be told why. N-HH talk/edits 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the proposed flags for the independent Taiwanese republic
It's nothing surprising if one is familiar with the issues around Taiwan and the ROC. For example, a proposed flag for the independent state doesn't have the islands of Kinmen, Wuchiu, Matsu, Pratas and Itu Aba on it, although it got Green Island, the Pescadores and Orchid Island. Inhabitants from Kinmen, Wuchiu and Matsu are required not to field in Taiwan (but China mainland instead) on the application forms when they apply for US visas at the AIT with their ROC passports. It's rather unambiguous that these remote islands aren't part of Taiwan (i.e. Taiwan and the ROC aren't coterminous), and almost all of the arguments for Taiwanese independence don't apply there. The WikiProject defines its scope rather clearly as "Articles relating to the following topics: History of Taiwan, Culture of Taiwan, Taiwanese people, Military of the Republic of China, Geography of Taiwan, Sport in Taiwan, Science, Politics of Taiwan, Religion in Taiwan". 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Please decide on what is best starting with 1950. At some point in the timeline there will be references to Taiwan, while other times it will call it ROC. That is expected in a list type timeline article. That is why I am ok with most proposals. Benjwong (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Should the naming discussion have a separate talk page?

Looking back though the archive of this talk page, it looks like the discussion of the article's name dominates over all other topics. I suggest we host these debates on a sub-page, such that other discussions regarding improvements to this article aren't drowned out. Perhaps Talk:Republic of China/Article name discussion? LukeSurl t c 23:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone can check with Jpech95, I'd like to know when he plans to bring his rewritten articles up for discussion. I've given the sandbox changes a very cursory glance and superficially agree with them at this point, but I think they should be brought out for formal inspection and discussion. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
There really isn't 'other discussion regarding improvements to this article'. Moving this to a subpage will make it harder for fresh users to see and participate, and impossible to achieve true consensus. Anyway, we just have to wait a short while longer before the orgiastic climax of this discussion: Jpech95's move request! Prepare your statements. Shrigley (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
A separate sub-page would hide the discussion, something that would suit those not wanting change. HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Shrigley, the lack of any other discussion is kinda my point! I'm sure there are other things that need to be discussed other than the article's name, but any user coming to this talk page is probably going to see multiple threads discussing the article name and think better of it. HiLo48, I'd imagine you'd have a box at the top of the talk page "For discussion regarding spelling please use ..." and you'd link the box from the article to the subpage. This has been done on pages such as Talk:Aluminium/Spelling. I would hope it wouldn't hide the discussion, but help to make it more organised (at the moment it's a mess with several threads). LukeSurl t c 17:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, any decision made here would impact other pages (articles of the form XXX in/of the Republic of China and also the current Taiwan page which would be moved to Taiwan (island)). It could be useful to have a central discussion which is separate from a single article's main talk page. LukeSurl t c 17:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Answer, in my opinion: No. The discussion of the nane of this article should always take place on this article discussion page. That is the standard Wikipedia practice, transparent way. Moving it is not conventional, does not follow Wikipedia policies and leaves open the possibility that fanatics (the only ones who may be interested enough to get involved on a specific "name" page) would hijack the process. This might happen while other editors were busy here on this page. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Was there any similar discussion around, for example, football, trainers and aeroplane? 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
All I remember is that Talk:Honour is full of bickerings over UK/US spelling. Not sure about the others though. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 09:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, there is no consensus for a change like this one proposed....Pity editors would not get on with improving the articles rather than rehashing this "name" debate for the umpteenth time. There is no consensus for any change in the article names. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Getting the name right, per what the rest of the world does, would be the most obvious and the biggest single improvement this article could see. Sadly, as ever here, one or two politically motivated hold-outs repeatedly block any progress on the most simple - but most important - things. We wouldn't have to "rehash" the name issue for the umpteenth time if it was actually sorted out once and for all. N-HH talk/edits 12:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, 86.*, consensus is slowly building for this change. The PRC->China move that triggered the latest rounds of discussion remains in effect. The WP:NC-TW guideline that conflicted with common use and Wikipedia policies has been demoted as it no longer represents consensus. There haven't been any proposals here yet to really gather consensus on, but one user has been working on sandbox versions of the articles that will be changed, which several of us intend to support when he brings it out for formal discussion. Despite efforts by certain Hong Kong-based IP editors to filibuster with irrational, irrelevant or circular arguments until editors give up on participating, the gears have been in motion this entire time to move towards the inevitable outcome of this page being moved. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll be interested to see the new draft articles. Personally I think that the article as it stands is better entitled 'Republic of China', but I can imagine that some rearrangement, rewriting, of the content of this and a few other articles would tip my opinion in favour of the proposed move. If/when we do move this article, as well as moving most of/all articles with Republic of China in the title, we may need to do a lot of work across Wikipedia updating links etc.. This would require a number of decisions; we'd need a decision at which point in history to start referring to the state as 'Taiwan' for instance. As I think we're not just debating a single-article name change, but really a Wikipedia-wide policy, I would again suggest we try and form consensus on a page separate from a single article's talk page. We can then direct editors there from all articles that would be impacted by any decision, not just those involved in this page. LukeSurl t c 23:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Case in point, on Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation) right now there's a proposal being voted on to move Taiwan to Taiwan (island) and Taiwan (disambiguation) to Taiwan. Should that and the idea being discussed here pass we're going to have a right mess. We seriously need to have a central place to form consensus on the naming of all these Taiwan-related articles. (Please note this is a procedural suggestion, and I am suggesting it for reasons of efficiency rather than trying to tip the balance either way) LukeSurl t c 23:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
That's the gist of what most of us are suggesting, I think. It's not that we just want a rename of this article and nothing else, we understand that rewriting will be necessary to make sure the articles and their titles are still in sync. On the Taiwan disambig proposal, I am uncomfortable that it got in before Jpech95 was able to put his proposal forward, and it does have the potential to cause some minor mess, but I think it's still fixable. Unfortunately I haven't heard anything about Jpech95's work recently and I hope it's still continuing. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The move request on disambig won't affect this page move. Basically, the move will occur if the island is not the primary topic. It should be moved if it's not primary, irrelevant as to whether another page is primary. If in future another page is determined to be the primary topic, it can be moved to Taiwan. CMD (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree. 147.8.102.148 (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we need to rewrite the articles or to rename them. Things can be settled with redirects and disambiguation pages. The articles are titled PRC, ROC and "Island of Taiwan" in many other languages on Wikipedia. Why should we introduce an exception on English Wikipedia? 147.8.102.148 (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Before anyone bothers answering that, maybe you can tell us why you are so rudely ignoring the already multiply made point about Taiwan being the common name among 99% of the English speaking world. (The quality of debate from some here is appalling. It is NOT good faith to ignore the primary point made by those with whom you disagree.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not follow much of the debates but I myself would suppose that titles tend to be accurate and descriptive, and common names can be catered by redirects and in many cases disambiguation pages. US Army is the common name but we got the article at United States Army. CT and CAT scan are the common names but we got the article at X-ray computed tomography. I agree the common name is Taiwan, but the subject matter here is clearly the Republic founded in 1912 and of course a bit of the history of its founding. The subject matter isn't Taiwan the islands. Titling this article as "Taiwan" doesn't sound right to me given the scope of the subject matter. And I found little reason to cut a continued and continuing polity into two or more articles. There isn't any established point in its history that we can neatly and clearly separate it in a similar manner like the Fourth and the Fifth Republics of France. 147.8.102.148 (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the Republic of China a continuous and continuing entity? There's no such clear-cut point in history. 147.8.102.148 (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Obfuscating, as usual for people taking your position. Since you brought up the country, try renaming United States from its common name to its formal name. I wish you luck. Only people still fighting 60 year old wars are doing everything they can to stop the globally common name of Taiwan being used. It doesn't help your political cause. It just makes you look silly. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Try your luck moving sodium hydroxide to caustic acid, ethanol to alcohol, and Republic of the Congo to Congo. (Yes. It takes its seat in the UN simply as "Congo".) You can perhaps go call the Brits fighting a 90-year-old war too for their obstructions to the move from Republic of Ireland to Ireland. 147.8.102.79 (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that usage in English sources implies that main article about this country (post-1949) should be titled "Taiwan". But much of the content of the current article does not belong at that location (most of the pre-1949 history, Claimed territories), and some of it is already present at "Taiwan" (Economy, Demographics). In fact the current Taiwan article already has about half of what a reader would expect from a country article. And I think we'll still need an article at "Republic of China" to describe the continuity between the pre- and post-1949 republics. (This is a valid, though not universally held, viewpoint, but the proponents of change seem as unable to comprehend it as their opponents are the common name issue.) So I'm in favour of declaring the "Taiwan" article the one about the modern country, moving large chunks of this article there, and limiting the role of this article to something like French Fifth Republic. Kanguole 00:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
By doing so we will have to establish that the events in 1949 and the few years that follow, perhaps until the mid-1960s, in broader China is comparable to the collapse of the Fourth Republic and the founding of the Fifth Republic. 147.8.102.148 (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
A much less smaller operation is to redirect Taiwan to Republic of China, and to illustrate in the ROC article that it has been commonly known as Taiwan in the past few decades. 147.8.102.148 (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
But a much more accurate and consistent operation would be to have this main article as "Taiwan" - and have main references in text elsewhere on WP to the modern place talk about "Taiwan" - and explain the history and naming/sovereignty disputes in the body (as well as maintaining sub-articles such as History of the Republic of China and Government of the Republic of China, 1992 consensus etc). That's what the rest of the world does in dealing with Taiwan-China in 2012. That way the terminology matches with common use and what most people will expect and be looking for - while also perhaps educating those less familiar with the history about the background and controversy as they read into the article proper. It might entail some minor content shuffling, but every other encyclopedia and formal country profile set-up does it that way and copes with it. Why can't we? N-HH talk/edits 11:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Most Wikipedias in languages other than English are having articles named PRC, ROC and Taiwan (or "Island of Taiwan" or "Taiwan (island)"). Why should we be different? I don't believe that other languages are so different from English that Taiwan isn't the common name in those languages for the ROC in the past few decades. 147.8.102.79 (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the English-language WP, which should reflect English-language usage. Even if your guesses/assertions are correct about what the common name is in other languages (and, indeed, about what "most" other WPs do), that has nothing to do with anything. And of course, while we're indulging (in) guesses, I'd imagine it's pretty likely that they are only that way because a lot of them copied the weird set-up that used to be here, which we are finally getting close to untangling and resolving in the direction of common sense and standard - and perfectly "correct" - modern usage. And, finally, the "whatabouttery" from HK IPs is getting very dull. It repeats the same - utterly irrelevant - points over and over again (see entries from this same and similar IPs above, eg "What about England/Britain?" What about "ethanol/alcohol"? etc ad nauseam. Maybe those are equally egregious breaches of common name policy; or maybe there are genuine ambiguity issues; or maybe - as in England - there's nothing to discuss. Either way feel free to go and debate those examples on their respective pages if you wish to). If this is going to go on, perhaps we should have a separate page for this issue, as this thread originally suggested. N-HH talk/edits 12:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Further to N-HH's comment, it should be pointed out that what other language Wikipedias do is irrelevant. Each Wikipedia is independent, they have their own community with their own rules. Some allow copyrighted images and some don't, for instance. Secondly, what the other language Wikipedias do is most commonly taken from the lead that the English Wikipedia took - in other words, the other Wikipedias have articles on PRC/ROC/etc. because that's the way the English Wikipedia used to be. We have changed that now in line with our policies and it's up to the other Wikipedia projects if they want to also change. We have never, nor will we ever, name our articles based on the 'peer pressure' of what other Wikipedia projects are doing. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(outdent) Each Wikipedia is independent, and the decisions of another Wikipedia aren't binding on this one. But then no man is an island, and it's natural to look at how others deal with the same thing. Further, it's plain hypocritical to pinpoint only the ROC and turn a blind eye with other similar cases. If you are a genuine commonnamist, do so in a uniform and consistent manner. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I do apply WP:COMMONNAME uniformly. However, as I'm sure you understand, I'm one editor and don't have the sheer volume of time needed to pursue common name arguments across every article on Wikipedia. I do, however, pursue it in each situation I find myself involved in. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it is obvious that there is no consensus in favour of any change. Honestly speaking, I don't think there ever will be. The idea of labelling the "Republic of China" as simply "Taiwan" is very political. It is unavoidable. It is abundently clear that the "Republic of China" is far more than a mere province, "Taiwan"....No change to the current set up is desirable. It's a pity this politics can't be put aside and focus be put back on the articles...86.46.20.20 (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You've said this four times already on this page. We heard you. Your opinion is noted. Repeating it over and over isn't going to change anything. No concrete proposal has been made here, hence why there's no consensus yet for one. But note that 'no consensus' doesn't just mean 'no consensus to change', it also means 'no consensus to remain'. Wikipedia's default action is to retain the status quo and continue consensus-building. Your repeated comments that you feel there's no consensus come across strongly as an attempt to stifle the consensus-building process in favour of your desired (status quo) outcome. Please don't do that. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
To 86.46.20.20 (I do wish you had a better name I could address you with to avoid confusion)... The campaign to use the name Taiwan is NOT political! In fact it's quite the opposite. There is no politics at all involved in a desire to use the common name. All the politics on display is from those still fighting 60 year old wars, and the more you do it the sillier you look. You political and military goals will NEVER be achieved by being recalcitrant over the name on Wikipedia. Please join those who REALLY want to put the politics aside. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. The idea that those simply asking for use of the common name are somehow being political or dragging politics into this unnecessarily is preposterous, and in fact has everything entirely on its head. Preferring the barely used, archaic "official" designation - which also asserts sovereignty over the whole of China - is rather obviously way more political and contentious. Since when did an "official" government designation (which of course is as often avoided even by official Taiwanese sources as it is used by them) become neutral? Also, if we're talking about clarity and the claim that simply calling this place "Taiwan" would confuse as to the island-country distinction and the extent of the territory actually ruled (let alone claimed), then what we have now hardly helps: an article at an obscure and generally avoided name, with a hatnote directing the reader to the article currently called Taiwan - which is, for now, specifically about the island itself and not any outlying regions/smaller islands - for details of "its territories". The worst of all worlds, it would seem. Obscure terminology, lack of clarity and misleading information. N-HH talk/edits 11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
(Re N-HH's post at 11:30, 1 February 2012) I happened to have come across rulings of Australian and US courts that use "Republic of China" to refer to the country. [10] [11] [12] "Republic of China (Taiwan)" also appears in an Irish statutory instrument. [13] [14] It's nothing about politics, the 60-year-old war, or the territorial claims. It's about accuracy and neutrality. It's also about easiness to further illustrate lesser known concepts such as the dispute around Taiwanese independence. If we call this country outright as Taiwan, and consider Taiwan to be an independent country, it will be difficult, for example, for us to explain to general readers why some people want Taiwan declare its independence. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, I've noticed the ones here fighting the hardest for ROC = Taiwan are the Aussies and the Brits. How can their view on the majority of English speakers truly be the majority when Aussies+Brits < Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk)
You seem confused. We are not offering our "opinions" nor are we spokespeople for our supposed nations. You or others may be, I don't know. We have simply looked at the evidence as to common name from sources around the world, including of course from Taiwan itself. ROC is occasionally used, but it is not the common, mainstream terminology in 2012. It simply isn't. It doesn't matter why that might be, or that there is a history as ROC or wider claimed territories as ROC (we have articles on these points). This article purports to be about the modern country/state/renegade province/whatever, with a historical trail in the body, not about some abstract theoretical non-PRC "Republic of China". It should be named - and contemporary references to the entity elsewhere on WP should follow that - what the rest of the world calls this thing, ie "Taiwan". End of. N-HH talk/edits 10:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
"abstract theoretical non-PRC "Republic of China"" - but the ROC isn't theoretical. The ROC doesn't "theoretically" exist. As for what people call it, whilst normal people call it the "common spider crab", scientists (more specifically, biologists) call it the Libinia emarginata. Similarly, from a few links given above, those within the fields of law call it the Republic of China, even within places like Australia, whilst only laymen call it "Taiwan". Wikipedia can afford to be more technical than other texts because Wikipedia is not print media. Otherwise, we may as well rename e2fsprogs as "Ext2 file system utilities" and IBMDOS.COM as "DOS kernel executable", which are less technical and more "human" ways of naming them. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 10:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Please drop the obscure, irrelevant, off-topic "analogies". I simply KNOW that Taiwan is the common name. I'm sure you do too. It's been proven many times. Wanting to use it here has NOTHING to do with politics. You are conceding nothing. That is not collaboration. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a cause for despair the number of times people seize, in this debate and others, on one-off examples from the real world or other WP pages as if that proves anything at all. The couple of tribunal judgments cited above prove nothing - absolutely nothing whatsoever - about what general usage is, in the legal world let alone elsewhere. Either way, WP is a general use encyclopedia, not a legal or technical handbook (we'd all be in serious trouble if it was the latter). We have to look at the overall, predominant contemporary usage; which is "Taiwan". And whether other individual WP pages, on spiders or anything else, are "correctly" or not named per policy and real-world usage is, as noted above and previously ad nauseam, wholly irrelevant too. We have to look at the broad policy and practice - which, for countries, is to use the common, short-form name, ie in this case "Taiwan". That holds on WP and indeed in every respected general use English-language encyclopedia-style source, from BBC and CIA country profiles to Whitakers to Britannica. For this entity, the common name is undoubtedly Taiwan. Full stop. And, finally, the notion of the ROC as a wider government of the whole of greater China is indeed theoretical and abstract as a concept and has no weight as a basis for naming this article, or for references to this entity elsewhere on WP. I have a friend who once thought he was Napoleon. He does not get equal billing here. (OK, not really and that exaggerates the point, but still ...) N-HH talk/edits 11:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is somewhat of an oxymoron, because its upholding is based on double-standards. It's only cited when a certain agenda is being introduced, and ignored when nobody really gives a damn. During major heated debates that everyone is gritting their teeth about, be it the Sea of Japan, Aluminium or British Isles, its linked to at least ten times, but in ghost town articles its as if COMMONNAME is trivial and optional. Sure, Wikipedia and its collaboration model was never perfect to begin with, but it's quite pressing when things like this happen from time to time. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 11:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
That may be because the subjects of ghost town articles are far less likely to have a clear common name. If this is not the case, the ghost town articles should be changed. If you want commonname to be not a part of this debate, you'll have to try and get consensus for its change or removal at its talkpage. CMD (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no agenda above and beyond making this page and WP terminology about this place tally with what I - and everyone else, as it happens - gets to see in 99% of what they see and read elsewhere. As noted, the suggestion that that argument is about politics is preposterous, especially when it comes from those who are being explicitly political in their assertions about "legitimate" governments and 60 year-old wars, as many have been. And again, any other debates about the application of the eminently sensible common name policy have nothing to do with anything here. If it is not being applied, or mis-applied, elsewhere that's an issue for those pages; sometimes it doesn't always offer a clear answer. However, the conclusion to draw from it here is inescapable. N-HH talk/edits 12:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It isn't convincing to pinpoint only on the ROC, but not other countries such as the "Republic of Ireland" and the "Republic of the Congo". The other examples might perhaps appear to be irrelevant, but Ireland and the Congo are countries too. I hadn't actually read about "Republic of Ireland" apart from Wikipedia and some British and Irish legislations. And the Republic of the Congo takes its seat in the UN simply as Congo. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Irish legislation dosen't use Republic of Ireland, and we don't base our titles on UN names. We've been over these cases before. CMD (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
What about the Republic of Ireland Act 1948? It's an act of the Oireachtas. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It uses it as a descriptor, not a term, as the many Irish editors of wikipedia will fall over themselves to tell you. The official name of the Irish state in English is "Ireland". CMD (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
That's why I said I hadn't read about this phrase apart from Wikipedia and some British and Irish legislations. It isn't a common name yet it's chosen to be the title of the Wikipedia article on that country. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It's done so to disambiguate it from the island, which editors have determined is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Ireland". CMD (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is an argument against merging ROC with Taiwan (Island). The latter is a place, the former is a government. One could even argue that PRC and China should not be merged together; China is the geographical area that many governments (of many different ethnicities) have ruled over and they were all called different things (including Republic of China). The PRC is the current government that rules over the area that the rest of the world has called China since the Qing Dynasty and even before if the word "China" does come from the Khitan (Medievel times). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Primarytopic is unrelated to merging, it deals on the premise that there are already two separate articles. As for government articles, the relevant ones are Government of the Republic of China and Government of the People's Republic of China. The main articles are about the state, an idea that in English includes the territory and the people on it. CMD (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is about the history, the politics, the political status, foreign relations, demographics, and so on and so forth of this country, which covers the Chinese mainland between 1912 and 1949, Taiwan including the Pescadores from 1945 onwards, and Quemoy, Wuchiu and Matsu from 1912 onwards, as well as that of the predecessors of this country. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't the country the primary topic, with the article for the island located at Ireland (island)? (Does the island article cover the islets around the (main) island btw?) And even if the country isn't the primary topic, why couldn't the country article be titled Ireland (country)? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Because when people write about Ireland, they usually mean the island (or so the consensus says), which includes both the state and the British part of the island (it's not written to mention every island around it, but these are so tiny it doesn't really make a difference). Why would it be titled "Ireland (country)"? Titles without brackets read much better, and using the word country with anything to do with that area of the world is a bad idea. CMD (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The Great Britain article does make it clear that it covers the smaller islands around it. And I don't think Ireland the island is the primary topic and that the article on the country isn't. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Off you go then. See you later. N-HH talk/edits 22:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
(Re N-HH's post at 11:34, 3 February 2012) It's been mentioned umpteen times that governments are obliged to follow their own official positions. Both the UK and the US recognise only the government in Beijing, and as a result the CIA and Whitakers are obliged to follow. And for the US in particular, there's a piece of legislation requiring the government not to recognise the Taipei government. As for the second part of your argument, ROC's claim is irrelevant here. It's about the hard fact that it's the ROC that was established in 1912 and celebrated the 100th anniversary of its revolution months ago. It wasn't Taiwan that was established in 1912 and celebrated the 100th anniversary. I'm sure your friend has never ever been Napoleon. But the ROC had been China and is still part of China by some definitions. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
(Re N-HH's post at 10:02, 3 February 2012) "This article purports to be about the modern country/state/renegade province/whatever" - This article isn't only about the modern country/state. It's about the country/state in general. We don't exclude information that aren't modern. And, as a matter of fact, we got separate articles on ROC's streamlined province of Taiwan and PRC's claimed province. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Trying to deal with points from both posts, not that anyone should have to .. 1) the idea that guides are "obliged" to follow what their national governments happen to say is as ridiculous and pointless as anything you've said in your various guises here. And, even if it were the case - and even accepting that there might be a vague, indirect connection there - that is either irrelevant to, or even bolsters, the common name case. It doesn't matter why something might be the common name, it's the fact that it is, as evidenced in multiple sources that define it. 2) the ROC has indeed "been China". Perhaps you should note the tense involved there. 3) I never said this article is, or should be, about "only about the modern country/state". I never said "only", and you've avoided the qualifier I added in that original post, "with a historical trail in the body [of the article]". Given that the very first sentence says "The Republic of China .. is a unitary sovereign state located in East Asia" I would appear to be correct as to what this article is purporting to be about; and about how inaccurate all the terminology here is, given that "Taiwan" is how most people and sources refer to the place these days. Now, go away please. N-HH talk/edits 21:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Please follow Wikipedia:Indentation#Indentation guidelines (#2 and #3 particularly) on how to reply to comments. Sources that are intrinsically biased should be dismissed. The CIA is part of the US government and is obliged to follow legislations enacted by the US Congress. Further, as you may not already know, inhabitants of Kinmen and Matsu cannot declare to be from Taiwan when they apply for visas at the AIT, even though they apply with ROC passports. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have little interest in your opinions about WP indentation guidelines or the arcane details of UK immigration rules (I assume that is what you are referring to by AIT). Your points about whether the CIA simply follows US legislation and whether we should ignore what the US government and all its constituent parts say - for better or worse - when we are looking, simply, at what common terminology is for something are equally irrelevant to the point at issue. However, if you wish to ignore "official" descriptions, let's also exclude the Taiwanese government's occasional (and diminishing in frequency) terminology. Then we'll have virtually no one using "ROC". Agreed? N-HH talk/edits 22:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid the AIT represents the US instead of the UK. My point was that these governments can only use the inaccurate term "Taiwan" as a euphemism for the "Republic of China" because of their ties with Beijing. And as far as the US is concerned, their legislation does not define Kinmen and Matsu to be part of Taiwan. AIT's policy is a reflection of their legislation. If you don't know how to indent properly, it's difficult to discuss. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
(Re HiLo48's post at 07:18, 1 February 2012) It isn't a 60-year-old war, but to stick with the hard facts. The hard facts are that this article is about the Republic of China from its founding in 1912, and that this article is about a location which extent is wider than what is considered to be Taiwan. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
(Re HiLo48's post at 07:18, 1 February 2012) Insofar as the Republic of China being forced to call itself Taiwan due to international politicking by the People's Republic of China, an endorsement of the Republic of China = Taiwan is an endorsement of the People's Republic of China's POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a pragmatic approach to use the alternative name to identify itself. But that doesn't mean the two terms are ≅, ≡ or ≝ with each other. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
To 159.53.78.140 - absolute crap!. I want to call it Taiwan because it makes sense. I have no interest in what the People's Republic of China wants. How many times do I have to say that the people motivated by politics here are those opposing the change, such as yourself, and they are also showing very poor faith by ignoring what those wanting change say, and accusing US of being politically motivated. Your view of the world is very distorted, very dishonest and very rude. Grow up. Accept reality. And let us all move on. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
They appear not to understand basic logic either. Just because term A is preferred by group 1, it does not of course follow that people accepting term A are part of or sympathetic to group 1. It could just mean that - for whatever reason - term A is what the whole world now uses, and per our policies here and by common sense and familiarity, we just want to follow that. But hey, intelligence isn't what counts here. It's about topping up each section of the talk page with trolling, so those sections never get archived and everyone else wastes their time responding. N-HH talk/edits 21:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
And I want to call/rename the Elizabeth II article to Queen of England like we call her America. That's what we call her on this side of the pond. But would it be right?
Google search for Queen of England: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=11&gs_id=v&xhr=t&q=queen+of+england&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=queen+of+en&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d4aea2a5825eafc1&biw=1280&bih=851
Google search for Queen of Scotland: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=11&gs_id=v&xhr=t&q=queen+of+england&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=queen+of+en&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d4aea2a5825eafc1&biw=1280&bih=851
Google search for Queen of Northern Ireland: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=Queen+of+Northern+Ireland&pbx=1&oq=Queen+of+Northern+Ireland&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=190552l190552l3l190943l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d4aea2a5825eafc1&biw=1280&bih=851
Google search for Queen of Wales: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=Queen+of+Wales&pbx=1&oq=Queen+of+Wales&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=18351l18788l4l18929l5l5l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d4aea2a5825eafc1&biw=1280&bih=851
Google search for Queen of United Kingdom: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=Queen+of+United+Kingdom&pbx=1&oq=Queen+of+United+Kingdom&aq=f&aqi=g2g-v2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=33562l37748l5l38045l19l12l1l1l1l0l687l1936l5-3l4l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d4aea2a5825eafc1&biw=1280&bih=851
Please note where the google search for "Queen of United Kingdom" says "Best guess for United Kingdom Queen is Elizabeth II"
See? She's the Queen of England. It's obviously her common name. But is it right?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Yet another irrelevant, off-topic, insulting post. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
@HiLo48, irrelevant and off-topic as it may be, many of your own posts have not an ounce of civility and sometimes even your edit summaries are insulting. If you continue this way, you will only be creating evidence against yourself, so when it's time for WQA or even ANI and RfC/U, don't plead the fifth. GotR Talk 03:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Your kind of civility has achieved nothing here. I obviously come from a different place and presumably different culture than you, because "the fifth" means nothing to me. Maybe my cultural background says that if one approach isn't working, you try another. Anyway, I insist that a lot of the IP editors are being quite rude in the way they respond to good points made by others. They obfuscate. They ignore. They derail. They insult other editors' knowledge and intelligence. They may not use such firm language as mine, but it is NOT quality discussion. So, do you have a better suggestion to make this discussion move forward? HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I have largely stayed out of this discussion precisely because nothing new/fresh is being offered, so I don't know what the devil you are talking about by "Your kind of civility has achieved nothing here". And I am afraid to say, you are deflecting by not admitting to your own, deep faults, and much of what you have written here is nothing but pure naïvete and brinkmanship. My suggestion to propel this discussion is that people set aside any notion of page moves and focus on content instead—although I agree that "Taiwan" should be avoided in references to the state, the ROC/Taiwan convention can be revised to be less strict (such as scrapping the requirement that Taiwan refer only to the island), but nevertheless maintain its spirit. GotR Talk 04:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
And that, sadly, completely ignores the very sensible, non-political, primary point made many times by many quite objective and fair editors here that Taiwan is the common name for the country. Given that you too are trying avoid that obvious point, and have no other solution to the debate than not having it, your motives in criticising me have to seriously be in question. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It is a concrete attempt at an solution that actually moves in your direction; my proposed softening of the convention is actually due to recognition of the common name issue. Staying away from largely abstract move discussions and moving towards discussion on content does not constitute denial of the point you make. If you did not have such a penchant to bludgeon others and to display the extent of your naivete, you would have seen this already. GotR Talk 05:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Taiwan is merely a common name or a euphemism. It is neither accurate nor neutral, and apparently not adequately encyclopedic. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Just as "the fifth" has little to no meaning to you as a logically acceptable way of looking at things, saying the ROC = Taiwan has the wrong meaning and is logically unacceptable to many of us who do not come from the same part of the world as you. You're walking a very slippery slope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
What's interesting to me is how much time people put into the ROC vs Taiwan (Island) debate and how nobody is clamoring for a Hainan (Island) article separate from the Hainan article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2012
In reality it has never been possible to be that strict on Wikipedia. And as a matter of fact it has to be so strict in order to preserve neutrality and avoid ambiguities. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
You seem to want some of us to respect your culture, where you come from. Many of us are asking you and those who stand with you to understand our culture, where we come from: The name is Republic of China. The name is not Taiwan. Please respect our culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is any distinction between editors with or with no registered account. We got registered editors here who apparently didn't even know about the ABCs around Taipei-Washington relations such as the AIT, and who don't bother to learn about the peculiar status of Quemoy, the Matsu Islands, etc., as far as the ROC and Taiwan are concerned. It's difficult to have any meaningful discussion. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
We also have editors here who are aware that arguing the toss about who knows what about obscure acronyms and abbreviations, and about marginal issues about outlying territories, has absolutely nothing to do with any debate about the common name of the overall entity (and that such arcane pettifoggery will, of course, happily maintain itself whether we refer to this place as "Taiwan" or "Republic of China"). Fortunately. I for one though do find the suggestion that you are contributing to "meaningful discussion" a little confusing. N-HH talk/edits 20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with 218.250.159.25 that it's meaningless to discuss anything with people who aren't familiar at all with the subject of the discussion. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia on topics that 999 in 1000 average laypersons on street don't know about at all. 202.189.108.245 (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The majority of conversation above is circular and unproductive. 218.* (Netvigator Hong Kong, again), your constant efforts to filibuster discussion are achieving nothing - you're not convincing anyone to change their mind, and ultimately the weight of policy and strength of argument will decide this issue when it is eventually put to the community, not the reams upon reams of you saying the same thing over and over and over again.

HiLo and N-HH, it would appear that our Netvigator friend is being intentionally disruptive to support his particular point of view. His tactics of circular and repetitious argument appear intended to drive away other editors due to frustration. It would be better to simply ignore him altogether. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you reading a different page from what I read? From what I read there were many other contributors. And I found those arguing for Taiwan = Republic of China circular, filibustering and unproductive. They are so disruptive that those arguing against (like GotR) had stayed out of the discussion. 202.189.108.245 (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for binding RFCs

There is a discussion on establishing a set of rules for binding RFCs located here [15]. If anything can use such a drastic remedy, this article might be it. Ngchen (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for this, however, it must first be applied to the China = PRC and ROC /= China before it is applied to the ROC = Taiwan discussion. This issue needs to be handled in the chronological order beginning with the first discussion and change (i.e. China = PRC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
We don't even know whether or not the draft policy is going to be possible. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreement

I agree the motion to move this article to Taiwan. Republic of China is the official government name of Taiwan. Aamuizz (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the move. Other editors don't either. There is no consensus for change. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Consensus does not equal unanimity. It is about broad agreement, based on policy. One or two editors trying to veto by saying they do not like something or other that has been proposed doesn't count for much I'm afraid. N-HH talk/edits 19:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It's clear at the moment that there are a number of vocal editors on either side of this issue - this is not consensus. It may eventually come down to polling as did the naming of Republic of Ireland (not a brilliant solution). It would be nice if consensus could be achieved, but I worry that we'll simply fall into a war of attrition, with the "winners" being those who don't lose interest/patience first. To be honest, there's a handful of arguments for each position that have to be weighed against each other, and most of the discussion is a series of rehashings of those arguments. I'm not that optimistic, but I think we could help ourselves a lot by adding some structure to the debate environment. LukeSurl t c 00:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem around Taiwan and China are a lot more difficult than Ireland. Ireland is English-speaking and most of the people who vote know sufficiently about the then and now about the island. This isn't the case for Taiwan and China. 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
From when on did "Taiwan" become a common name for the whole of the ROC? 203.145.92.208 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
As with anything that changes in a natural fashion over time, precise dates can't be pinpointed. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence that right now (and right now is what matters for this article title) the common name for this country in English-speaking sources is Taiwan. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
In that case shall we go on to say in this article that "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, is a republic in East Asia established in 1912 with Dr Sun Yat Sen as its founding provisional president." and "Taiwan was a founding member of the UN and a permanent member of the UN Security Council until 1971, when its UN membership was replaced by the People's Republic of China."? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No, which has been made clear throughout this conversation. CMD (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
That's bring us back to the same question. From when on did Taiwan become a common name for the ROC? From when on did the ROC become Taiwanese and no longer Chinese?
Don't know. It's not important at all for the naming of this page. Prose, which has the room to explain, will handle it fine. CMD (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Some editors here are proposing to rewrite these few articles and to remove the pre-1945 part of the ROC from this article. If you can't name a date it's basically impossible to do the rewrite and removal. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
A date for content is different from a date for when Taiwan became synonymous with the ROC. CMD (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
So are you suggesting 1945 to be the cut off date for content? This may potentially be non-neutral. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The cut off date for what? Everything is potentially non-neutral, which is the whole point of COMMONNAME. I'm glad you now understand. CMD (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
If there's a more neutral way, why not? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, it is pretty obvious there is no consensus for this sort of change....it all smacks of politics to me any way. 86.41.2.94 (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, There is no need for the move. This article is about the Government in Exile, or Rump State (depending on your opinion), of the Republic of China. There is already a separate article about the island of Taiwan.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
But the point is that we should really, per the rest of the world, be referring to that rump state as "Taiwan". That's the problem - the article about the island has "taken" the name Taiwan, even though Taiwan refers usually to the state as a whole and not simply the island (see Madagascar); and the article that is primarily looking at the modern state (with backstory), ie this one, is currently living under name "Republic of China", which no one really uses for that state in 2012. History of the Republic of China, Government of the Republic of China and associated historical articles can cover and explain the politics and history of all this. WP:COMMONNAME is the key when it comes to the simple question of what we call this article and how we refer to this entity in contemporary accounts. N-HH talk/edits 11:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Do Madagascar, Iceland, Sri Lanka and the like have the same path of history that their main islands at present weren't part of them years ago? Does any of them have any island that is not associated to its main island? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
For the record, consider these: Category:Islands of Madagascar, Category:Islands of Iceland, Category:Islands of Sri Lanka. Their main islands all have the same name as their country; just like the main island of the modern country Taiwan.
As CMD says, there is nothing stopping us from including some information about the beginning of the Republic of China, as it was in the early 1900's, since this information is clearly related to the modern entity (which one might call a "country", for short) of Taiwan. WP:CONCEPTDAB suggests to me that, in a case like this, an article titled "Taiwan" should be about the broad concept; there is no need to be overly precise in the article's scope. Mlm42 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article for this country (or rump state) should focus more on the landmasses that are now administered from Taipei. But it doesn't change the fact this country hasn't yet been superseded by Taiwan or a Taiwanese state. At some point it's closed to, but it hasn't yet reached that stage. For instance, it hasn't got its constitution replaced or substantially redrafted, its flag and its coat of arms replaced, nor has it got any diplomatic recognition as Taiwan. I based my position on these facts. I remain firmly open to change the title of this Wikipedia article when that stage is eventually reached. (And, for the record, I actually want that to happen.)
On comparison with other island countries - The ROC isn't comparable because the islands on the coast of Fujian and in the South China Sea aren't part of Taiwan. Iceland, Sri Lanka, Madagascar, etc., got no similar situation. It's a little bit like Monmouthshire before the 1970s, that it was treated as one with Wales, rather than part of Wales until the Welsh Language Act of 1967 or the Local Government Act of 1972. Monmouthshire was once unambiguously defined to be part of England but a large number of legislations apply to Wales and Monmouthshire, and as a result commonly though not legally considered part of Wales. I'd love to see these islands being re-defined by the ROC as part of Taiwan, but, again, as long as that hasn't been done, they remain not part of Taiwan in reality. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I'm beginning to understand your position; you appear to be waiting for an explicit piece of legislation, or something, that would declare some unambiguous statement like "Kinmen is part of Taiwan", and without that, we can't go forward.. is that correct? The problem with that reasoning, is that with don't need to unilaterally declare something like this before we change article titles. Explaining those sorts of details can always be done in the text, regardless of the title. Does that clear things up? Mlm42 (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily as much as a piece of legislation. General acceptance will be fine. The problem is that Kinmennese and Matsuese people don't considered themselves Taiwanese in strict sense.., and they didn't have the same experience as a result of Japanese rule. The Japanese didn't leave any fingerprint there as they did on Taiwan (including the Pescadores). The Matsuese (and people from Wuchiu too) don't even speak the same native languages as the Taiwanese people do. The de facto US embassy, the AIT, don't let applicants from Kinmen to fill in Taiwan as their country of nationality in their visa applications. Some Taiwan independence supporters call for pulling out the armed force from these islands, and these islands don't appear on the proposed flag for independent Taiwan. Furthermore, ROC ≠ Taiwan isn't only about these islands, but also about its laws, constitution, state organs, flag, coat of arms, monuments, and so on. And as a matter of geography these islands are in no way similar to the islands of Malta, Iceland, Cuba, Jamaica, Sri Lanka or Madagascar. They are politically part of the ROC but not geographically part of Taiwan. We really haven't reached that point yet to equate Taiwan and the ROC, and to call those islands Taiwanese (although my very personal position is that I want it to happen as soon as possible). 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You're looking for a rather universal acceptance, rather than a general one. What is the strict sense of being Taiwanese? In the English language, this means being from the country of Taiwan, which all these islands are part of. This isn't about a new government system replacing the ROC, or new laws redefining it, or a redefining of geographical terms. Taiwan, as the country is most commonly called in English, geographically includes all these islands. Taiwan has a political system, laws, constitution, state symbols, etc., that came with the government when it took over in 1945 and when it moved there in 1949. This is generally accepted. CMD (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily universal. But your approach is effectively (well, better say potentially) imposing an exonym onto people who don't identify themselves with it. When we talk about Taiwan in English, these islands are unimportant and it's difficult to conclude whether these islands are included or excluded. But it's like by common sense few people would agree that Hawaii became geographically part of North America at the time when it became politically part of the US in 1898 or 1959, these islands don't become geographically part of Taiwan just because they are politically ruled from Taiwan. The political system, laws, symbols of the ROC have all remained Republic of China's instead of Taiwan's. Supporters of Taiwan independence call for their replacement. Former president Chen actually took the very first steps to remove the word "China" or "Chunghwa" from some of the institutions and state-owned companies, and to rename some of the monuments associated with the ROC. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Your argument is flawed as it doesn't take Taiwan to be the name of the country. You argue the territories are not "geographically" part of Taiwan. I don't think it's common to refer to areas as geographically part of countries. They are part of the country, or they aren't (or they're disputed, but this has nothing to do with geography). If we do use this terminology, would you agree that Hawaii is geographically part of the United States? It's the same as saying that Kinmen is geographically part of Taiwan. CMD (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
All very interesting IP, but none of these points are relevant to the article title issue, which is not about pure geography or about outlying islands and their status or identity. Nor is it about having to wait until the "Republic of China" becomes "Taiwan" in some purportedly fundamental or substantive sense. The basic, broad meaning of "Taiwan" is pretty clear by common usage and common definition in 99% of serious real-world sources in 2012; as it is pretty clear that ROC is barely used at all when referring to the thing that is the subject of this article, with its country template and categories and all. Stop dragging in these academic - in the pejorative sense - and tangential points. N-HH talk/edits 23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The fundamental problem is that this country hasn't yet become Taiwan. It isn't only about how it is called, but also what it actually is. On Wikipedia we aren't dealing with only one article. We have to work on other related articles too. There are many articles around other more in-depth topics related to the ROC and Taiwan. We have to be consistent with our nomenclature. We are not here to introduce confusions. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The United States is a country. Taiwan isn't a country. Kinmen is part of the ROC. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
To refute a claim about Kinmen, consider the google searches: "Kinmen, Taiwan" (~126,000 hits) and "Kinmen, Republic of China" (~8,000 hits). So it's not Wikipedia who is trying to "impose" anything on anyone; we are just trying to reflect actual usage. As this discussion unfolds, it becomes more and more clear that the current article titles do not reflect actual usage. Mlm42 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Or consider that the US state dept's country profile on - guess what they call it - "Taiwan" explicitly states: "The authorities in Taipei exercise control over Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, Penghu (Pescadores) and several other smaller islands"; or that the CIA profile explicitly includes Kinmen as part - indeed a county - of Taiwan; or that the New York Times does so too, at least in this sample feature. First, this point is indeed marginal when it comes to the basic, broad issue of article title; secondly, it doesn't even work in the IP/sock's favour anyway if we look at what appears to be common usage and definitions. And no, "the world being biased/confused" is not sufficent argument to refute that. N-HH talk/edits 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The US is using "Taiwan" as a euphemism for "Republic of China", since they cannot actually use that name at all. It has been for decades that the media follow the same nomenclature. There may be some historical or practical reasons (they simply can't decode every single time when officials talk about the ROC). But it doesn't mean that the ROC has already become a Taiwanese state. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The New York Times feature story didn't even touch on the fact that Kinmen has never been part of Taiwan, it wasn't part of the Japanese colony, and it hasn't been part of Taiwan Province of any Chinese state. It only put in vaguely "The people of Kinmen consider themselves culturally closer to the nearby mainland province of Fujian than to Taiwan". That's indeed a problem that newspapers or the media in general can never go too much into the details. They aren't an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It isn't only about what it is called, but also what it actually is. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The article about the government (in exile) is Government of the Republic of China. This article is about the (rump) state, which is known as Taiwan. CMD (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Summarize issues on both sides

Can make separate statements in this section summarizing their arguments? That will make it easier for unacquainted editors to take a stand on the discussed issues. Right now, looking at the mass of text above, it's practically impossible to make head or tail out of it unless one decides to read every line of text. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China should be re-named and moved to Taiwan

  • Common name of the ROC is "Taiwan".
  • Taiwan has in English become associated very closely with the state, and no evidence has been produced showing that discussion of the island is separated from the state of which it makes up basically all of. A clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
  • WP:CONCEPTDAB suggests that the "Taiwan" article should cover the broad concept, which includes - but is not limited to - the main island.
  • A google search from "Kinmen, Taiwan" has orders of magnitude more hits than "Kinmen, Fujian" or "Kinmen, Republic of China"; and Kinmen is clearly not part of the main island.
  • There is potential confusion, for unfamiliar readers, between "Republic of China" and the "People's Republic of China"
  • The concepts of ROC and Taiwan are not identical, so some content would need to change after a move; but that is not a problem, since this work has mostly been done already in userspace.

Republic of China should not be re-named and moved to Taiwan

  • The ROC is not the clear primary topic for the term "Taiwan", which often clearly refers to just the island.
  • The ROC's continued control of Kinmen, Matsu, and Wuciou as part of its own province of Fujian (which is in turn controlled mostly by the PRC) legitimises the name "ROC". In addition, a Google search for "Kinmen, Fujian" (without quotes) returns about the same number of results as "Kinmen, Taiwan" (without quotes).
I don't think Pratas and Itu Aba are part of Taiwan by any sense of the word, except for its usage as the euphemism of "Republic of China". 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Added a few links to the above. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 22:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The ROC has not controlled Taiwan for all its existence—the history of the two do not neatly coincide.
  • Confusability with People's Republic of China can be dealt with via a {{distinguish}} hatnote.
  • Incoming links can be fixed and patrolled with Taiwan being a disambiguation page, and readers who type in the URL bar can be navigated by redirects and disambiguation pages.


Thank you for summarizing the issues, Renmin. As I see it, there are generally three proposals for change at this point of time: (i) move Taiwan (disambiguation) to Taiwan, (ii) move Taiwan to Taiwan (island) and (iii) move Republic of China to Taiwan. Can we have a single RfC for this on a single page? If this RfC is well-organized, we will have better chances of finding out which direction consensus sways. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Did GotR and Cybercobra sign their comment?[16][17] 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC) 20:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It seemed implied that the sections are intended to be collaborative. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
My impression is those proposing moves are in favour of combinations: either (i)+(ii) or (ii)+(iii). A third kind of change is a merge: a single article at "Taiwan" covering all aspects of the country, from its politics to its geography, like every other country article on Wikipedia. Kanguole 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

China should be re-named to People's Republic of China; Republic of China and Taiwan (Island) article will not change.

  • The English word "China" spans 3 different states, each ruled by different governments (and ethnicities). 1 has disappeared, while 2 remain. Using "Qing Dynasty" (the Qing Dynasty of China fought against Great Britain during the Opium Wars), "Republic of China" (the Republic of China fought with the Allied forces against the Axis forces) and "People's Republic of China" (the People's Republic of China supported North Korea during the Korean War) will ameliorate the discussion when speaking both historically and politically and in more current terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
And there should be an article on China as a geographical region. That article was moved to Chinese civilisation, with its content almost entirely removed. The content should be restored. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about summary

My position is to:

218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the pre-1949 history for the People's Republc of China; they existed just as the United States existed as the Continental Congress before the establishment of the USA. Also, the current "China" article makes it look as though the Republic of China ceased to exist in 1949. Renaming ROC -> Taiwan would only serve to incorrectly reinforce that confusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talkcontribs)
Agree. As a matter of international personality the present ROC is the continuation of the same ROC founded in 1912 (or at the very least, in 1928). 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For Nearly Headless Nick and any other new users, a new move request is due to be submitted quite soon, where the arguments will no doubt be presented fresh. CMD (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very glad we have this, it might help everyone understand what's going on, because we have everyone all over the place with no organization. And yes, Chipmunkdavis is correct, my Taiwan article thing that I started back in December is preparing an RM to go along with the 1st opinion: Move ROC to Taiwan. Jpech95 22:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, oppose any move of this article: the Republic of China is far more than Taiwan Province and its name here on WP should reflect that. I smell politics in all of this. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
You've said this before, yes. Was there anything you wanted to add or are you just re-stating your position? There will be an opportunity to voice your concerns on Jpech95's proposal specifically when it is formally put forward, which doesn't appear to have happened yet. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks TechnoSymbosis - Glad you understand where I am coming from. Well, specifically, I would like to ask about what this bit of the proposal means:
"* Move China to People's Republic of China, and further summarise its pre-1949 history,
If China is at PRC, how can China (dab) be at China? I'm sure some one can explain.
Separately, the last bit of the proposal:
"* Move Chinese civilisation to China (region), China (cultural region) or China (geographical region), and restore the deleted content."
Does this proposal mean that the article will no longer be about the Chinese civilisation? If that is not what is proposed, I can't see the sense in changing the name of the article if it is about Chinese civilisation. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You'd have to ask 218.* about that, the moves mentioned above are his suggestion. I believe what he wants is for everything to go back to the way it was before our article on People's Republic of China was moved to China, with WP:COMMONNAME as a strongly cited reason. The desire of some of us to move Republic of China to Taiwan is in line with the already-performed PRC->China move. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That article wasn't just about "Chinese civilisation" before it was axed. It was an article about China as a geographical-cultural region. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the above was a response for me (if it was, thanks but it did not answer the small technical questions I asked). I absolutely oppose any move of the ROC article. The notion that it is justified on "COMMONAME" grounds is misguided. The Republic of China is far more than just Taiwan Province. The proposal ignores that. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Does this "far more" have an area of 180.1 sq km and a population of 74,050? Kanguole 11:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
BTW some countries in the world even smaller then this different...C933103 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Taiwan Province of the Republic of China (in dark grey)
Another map of the Taiwan Province of the ROC (in red) - See the dotted lines on the other side of the Taiwan Strait for (from north to south) the Matsu Islands, Wuchiu, and Quemoy; Pratas and Itu Aba are too far away to be shown.
"an area of 180.1 sq km and a population of 74,050" - As at 2012 ROC's Taiwan Province covers only about 70% of landmasses of the Taiwanese archipelago and about 40% of the population there. Even before 2010, Taipei and Kaohsiung, each with more than a million people, weren't part of Taiwan Province.[18] Please.. please don't pretend you know the meaning of Taiwan Province while you actually don't. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I suppose the next step for pro-PRC editors will be to get rid of all the articles that show that the Republic of China claims the Mainland as part of their territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The main proposal people are pushing for is not predicated on the Republic of China constituting Taiwan province and no more, but on the simple and incontestable fact that the common name for the modern state centred on Taiwan island (and officially and historically known as "ROC") is, in 2012, "Taiwan". We - along with every serious real-world source including the US State Dept, UK FCO, BBC, Britannica etc etc - all know that it includes other minor islands and territories, that there is history in respect of the name(s) and that there is a complicated relationship with mainland China/the PRC. As previous discussion makes clear. N-HH talk/edits 15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
But wouldn't this renaming drawn attentions of readers who want to find information about the Taiwan island to the politic body? As in the case, would it be better to let the Taiwan be a disambiguation page which people can choose to redirect to Taiwan (island) or Taiwan (country)? But if it is to be called as [[Taiwan (country)], would it be simpler to call it as Republic of China? C933103 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Readers would find out just as much about the island hitting the state page, as the difference between the two is minimal and not significantly mentioned in either page. Also, there'd be a hatnote, like there is now, so same number of clicks for them, but with the possibility of getting the information they need anyway, and with the majority of users getting straight to the page they want. CMD (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd bet most readers reach this country article through wikilinks. With Taiwan being a disambiguation page incoming links can all be fixed and patrolled. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
@Chipumnkdavis, If it is the case then why there are two different articles?C933103 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
A user decided to split the topics for whatever reason deep in the depths of wikipedia history. That is no reason the situation can't be changed now. CMD (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Re C933103: Yes. And Taiwan (country) is already a redirect that faithfully and dutifully brings readers to the article that they look for. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I for one oppose moving "Republic of China" to Taiwan. The "Republic of China" is far more than just Taiwan Province - and, for clarity, I am not just referring to ROC held islands outside the area of the "traditional Taiwan Province" or "contemporary ROC defined Taiwan Province". I am speaking of much bigger things. Any one who has ever visited Taipei will likely have been impressed by the CKS memorial there. Wouldn't it indeed be a monument well out of place if this was merely Taiwan. But it is not merely in Taiwan. It is in the Republic of China. That and so much more is the difference. You would be misleading readers if you were to rename the ROC article "Taiwan". Again, the "Republci of China" is far more than merely Taiwan Province. I support no further change to article names. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Common usage says "Taiwan" is the whole country. Last night I heard three separate TV programs from three different countries use that terminology. Politically motivated pedants, with no interest in making Wikipedia a truly accessible place are making this area a backwater. I withdrew from discussion here some days ago because of the ongoing obstinacy of this stubborn cluster of confusing IP editors who don't care how stupid this makes Wikipedia look. They just want to keep fighting old political battles. Having restated my position, I will probably again withdraw for some time. This is not a healthy area of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talkcontribs) 11:40, 10 February 2012‎ (UTC)
Accessibility should not supercede accuracy. Most sources in the world use "Taiwan" because they bow to either political (CIA World Factbook) or economic (businesses and publications around the world that wish to do business in the PRC) pressure from the PRC. As a truly FREE and OPEN encyclopedia, Wikipedia does not have to bow to pressure either political or economic (this place gets its money from donations). We have a singular opportunity here at Wikipedia, we can do this better and more accurately than any other source in the world, whether the Encyclopedia Britannica or the CIA World Factbook; we are free from political pressure and we are open to all without costing anybody a thing; we are and can be beholden to no government nor business. We can be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talkcontribs) 14:25, 10 February 2012‎ (UTC)
Bowing to pressure. You start off from the false premise that they would prefer to use the term "Republic of China". What political or economic pressure is Encyclopaedia Britannica bowing to? Also, accuracy is a non-argument. Terms have the meanings they are given. Here and now, Taiwan has the meaning of the state. That makes it as accurate as any other name. CMD (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Some sources are obliged to follow the official positions or even legislations of their respective countries (e.g. the CIA World Factbook). Some sources got economic or business considerations. But I'd rather say in that process most sources simply yield to the predominantly common usage so as to avoid the need to "decode" or "translate" the euphemisms that government officials and politicians say. After then the ROC government under a pro-independence party does so as part of its effort to desinicise itself. It's politically and practically difficult for the KMT government that followed to re-sinicise everything, although they actually acted to undo what its predecessor had done. Anyhow, you'd be impressed when you look for Taiwanese products (particularly electronic products) at home or in a Walmart (or even food products in Chinatowns) and found that many of these products are marked "Made in Taiwan, R.O.C.", even 60+ years after 1949. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Re HiLo48: "is the whole country" - Do they specifically and explicitly include the non-Taiwan parts of the contemporary republic? If not, it probably doesn't matter whether they identify it as Taiwan or as ROC. It simply doesn't make any difference at all in those contexts. But anyhow this country as a whole isn't going to be Taiwan unless its government gives up the non-Taiwan parts (or explicitly and statutorily defines the non-Taiwan parts to be Taiwan), ceases to consider itself to be carrying on the republic founded in 1912, enacts a new constitution, and changes its name. The Austrians initially have their country named Republic of German Austria and identified their country as the rightful successor to the Austrian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, but they eventually dropped the name and all those identifications. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, 86.45.54.230. This viewpoint can of course be presented in article text, but promoting it with the article name leaves Wikipedia out of line with contemporary English usage, not just in journalism but also in scholarly books and real encyclopedias. Kanguole 12:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
While I don't agree with 86.45.54.230, I am indeed worried that Wikipedia will soon be another venue of renaming en masse, repeating what'd happened in the ROC during the second Chen administration. The Wikipedia articles for China Airlines, China Television, Central Bank of the Republic of China, Chunghwa Post, The China Times, and so on and so forth will all have to be renamed just because of the notion that these names looks stupid and confusing to average lay readers. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to say I am very much at one with much of what IP 159.53.174.144 said above. Also, some one suggested in response to me that somehow Taiwan is in contemporary usage and Republic of China is not. That is patently untrue. Just visit most ROC governement websites etc. Taiwan residents are generally proud of their ROC. Any way, again, I smell politics in all of this. The "Republic of China" has been the name of the article from the start. It is abundently clear that there is no consensus to move the article. Given this, I would hope this discussion can be brought to an end. If not, I will continue to participate as best I can. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about discussion

I will emphasise one more point before I again move on. This conversation is incredibly difficult to follow with all the unregistered IP editors contributing. I cannot keep track of who is saying what. Societies that want to dehumanise parts of their population take away peoples' names and give them numbers. Only a fool would do it to themselves. Yes, It's within the rules of Wikipedia to not register, but I cannot comprehend why you won't do it, just as I cannot comprehend your recalcitrance over the naming issue. Registering could only help your case. I say again, this part of Wikipedia is one of its ugliest parts. Newcomers will not comprehend the views of the IP editors for the many reasons already given. You will NEVER win your political fight here, so please stop destroying the place. You are not showing good faith in any way at all. Goodbye again for now. HiLo48 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I know there is no policy on Wikipedia to discriminate IP editors, and therefore register or not should make no difference to the case. Each IP editors got different IP addresses and therefore they can be tracked and identified, and it's your very own POV to call them fools. And further we don't label people by their names. We read what they actually said. I care only about the content of their arguments and I don't pre-judge one's arguments just because of their names. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't help myself. I MUST respond. If you think that post refutes ANYTHING I said, you are sadly deluded. Yet again, conversation here is appalling. A sick part of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not clear who is the same person commenting on a rotating IP, which are deliberate socks, etc. Equally, they are all piling in out of chronological order, mostly to add irrelevant side-points and petty trivialities and/or bizarre suggestions about rewriting WP naming policies to avoid the "bias" of the real world. Even GotR, who at least has a named account, is a confirmed sock account that was created to evade a block, and has now taken to removing others' talk page contributions - not once, but twice. As you say, it's time-consuming for everyone involved and counter-productive for them, not least because it clarifies their agenda here, which is nakedly political and obscurantist. At least the most ubiquitous disrupter and spammer, who is also almost certainly a block- or ban-evading sock, has now finally and explicitly conceded that Taiwan is the common name for the country - just that they do not like it - so we now have agreement on the only significant, substantive point that needs to be debated for now. Hopefully the move request, when put formally, will be agreed more cleanly and more easily. I'd even go so far as to say that some of these IPs need to be barred from contributing to that. N-HH talk/edits 20:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I had conceded anything in the diff link that you quoted. It has always been my position that while Taiwan is a common reference to the contemporary ROC, Taiwan ≠ ROC. The two aren't identical nor congruent. And no I am not a sock. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
As for deletion of your remarks: I was told that those subsections were meant to be collaborative (see Cybercobra 21:12, 6 February 2012), and aren't supposed to be debated point by point. And I have actually restored those comments that GotR had deleted. Keep calm and stay cool. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The only appalling thing in this portion of the talk page is your rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's not get back into a pointless discussion as to whether an editor understands why some editors prefer simply IP addresses. It's allowed on WP - period. We all have to abide by the rules (including against sock puppeting and intolerance etc). For what it is worth, I did recently explain why I prefer to edit as an IP. You can read the explanation at User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (section) if you wish. Back to the discussion, the Republic of China is far more than Taiwan Province. That's the reason why I oppose the proposed move. I've already explaind a bit why I hold this view (as do many others). There is no consensus for any change in the article names. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion is not pointless. It's always useful in a debate to understand the true motivations of all participants. Understanding why you won't take the obviously (to me) helpful step of registering would really help me understand you better. Your link doesn't work. And you have repeated yourself without explanation, ignoring valid points made by others. Now, THAT'S a pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
HiLo48, that's a pretty WP:BITE-y remark. S/he made a copypaste typo, and it really isn't that hard to figure out that copypasting the first half of the link in the URL bar leads to a working page. And yes, it does appear that your rhetoric so far has been rather belligerent, from what I have read above. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 01:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations. You've worked out that I am extremely frustrated with a group of editors deliberately avoiding constructive conversation here. Oh, and whenever I post something complicated like a link, I Preview it. (In fact I preview most of my longer posts to check for typos.) Our IP editors insist that they are skilled and experienced editors despite choosing not to register, thus making it look like they are not experienced. Why should I be the one to sort out their stuff-ups? HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, we have WP-namespace pages regarding that, including WP:TEA, WP:BREAK and WP:COOL. Getting angry at people over the internet doesn't go anywhere, and it does give a novel impression towards the other people (if this wasn't Wikipedia, I would have uncontrollably put on my trolling hat and made a silly reply like "WHY YOU SO MAD YOU SO MAD YOU SO MAAAAAD INTERNET TEARS", but if I did that here I'd probably get my ass kicked by the community. That's exactly how I feel when I read people getting angry over the internet). You've given out your point already regarding your dissatisfaction towards other editors; any more than once and it gives people the impression that you're easy trollbait, and I'm practically grabbing my own nuts with my claws in stopping myself from behaving like I do on other websites. I'd advise you not to get internet-angry since it doesn't further your argument any better, and instead makes the situation more comic for people like myself. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 03:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
That's actually a very unhelpful contribution. You have made it appear that I am the problem here. I can quite deliberately and consciously choose what style I post with. Many of us here have tried the nice, rational and logical approach to the editors that are destroying this Talk page. It doesn't work. If you've looked beyond my post you will know that. I am quite deliberately trying another approach. You have now destroyed its effectiveness. You have given strength to those who are really damaging Wikipedia, when you should be condemning them. We shouldn't allow truly disruptive editors to be protected by a façade of niceness from others. Can you solve the REAL problem here please? HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"Our IP editors insist that they are skilled and experienced editors despite choosing not to register, thus making it look like they are not experienced. Why should I be the one to sort out their stuff-ups?"

(indent) You still don't get it? I'll try and explain this a bit further:

A decent discussion of a controversial topic
  • A: This is my point.
  • B: I disagree with your point, here are my reasons.
  • A: I support my point with these reasons. I debunk your reasons with these points.
  • B: There is a flaw in your reasons in this section. Also, these points.
What I seem to be seeing from you
  • A: This is my point.
  • B: Your point is wrong.
  • A: This is another aspect of my point.
  • B: As explained ad nauseam above, your point is wrong.
  • A: Why are you ignoring my point?
  • B: OH GOD, I TOLD YOU ALREADY, YOUR POINT IS WRONG, IT IS NULL AND VOID, IP EDITORS THESE DAYS, JESUS CHRIST

If you truly are getting frustrated, then take a break. Otherwise, change your rhetoric a bit, it's not constructive. I get the impression that you are selectively reading people's posts, selectively ignoring parts of posts, and then stating that other people's points are incorrect without effectively addressing them. Not only on this page; I've seen this elsewhere as well; it's not what I think to be the right way to deal with controversial issues. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 04:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you seem to want to make it look like the problems with this page are my fault, and you know they are not, so please put your effort into criticising those creating the problems. To help you understand, I'll provide you with a correct description of the flow we've seen above....
  • A: These are my points.
  • B: This is my point
  • A: I believe your point is wrong and/or irrelevant because...... Can you please respond to the points I made.
  • B: This is my point.
  • A: Can we please have a conversation here. Please respond to the points I have made
  • B: This is my point
...etc, etc, etc.....
There is no real conversation occurring. I have wondered how to use Wikipedia's processes to address this, with no success so far. You know I am not the only person here experiencing the same difficulties. Please suggest a solution that doesn't involve allowing the deliberate (or incompetent?) obfuscators to keep damaging Wikipedia. If you keep telling me to give up, I can only assume that you are taking sides with those blocking progress here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talkcontribs) 05:07, 12 February 2012‎ (UTC)

The solution quite simply is to ignore them. If "B" is repeating the same point, to which "A" has already addressed, then there is no need for "A" to respond to "B" a second time. Increasing the volume of text on this page ends up scaring away the bystanders rather than enlightening them.--Jiang (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I must confess I have not read every word posted above....But if we are still discussing IP editors and the supposed difficulty of reading posts by IP editors, I am disappointed. Frankly, I think such discussion is at this point simply disruptive. This is a talk page for the Republic of China article. If an editor has an issue with basic rules on Wikipedia (like the right of IP editors to participate), such editor should take that up elsewhere. If the discussion is again back to what it should be about, the article - again, I see no consensus here for the change proposed. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

() Re HiLo48's remarks at 01:43, 12 February 2012: "Our IP editors insist that they are skilled and experienced editors despite choosing not to register, thus making it look like they are not experienced. Why should I be the one to sort out their stuff-ups?" - Please be civil and familiarise yourself with Wikiquette. Meanwhile, while I do know the shortcomings for not having a registered account, I hope you can understand that Wikipedia isn't a place for labelling, but a place for meaningful and intellectual collaborations. Even if people are named and therefore can be more easily identified, we don't rely on their names. We rely on the actual content of their contributions. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am desperately trying to understand why some editors, such as the incognito one above, ignore things that others post. Possible reasons include bad manners, incompetence, illiteracy.... Hmm, I'm running out of ideas. My point is that I've already made many posts explaining why there are problems in the approach described in that post, and I've been ignored. If there is any possible positive explanation for that, can someone please tell me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
HiLo, I don't think you've been ignored, but I really don't think this discussion is going anywhere (which is possibly why it's mostly only the IP editors who are responding).. Does anyone mind if I collapse this "discussion about the discussion" section? People have vented a bit, and Benlisquare's posts were pretty funny, but it's probably time to wrap this one up, yes? Mlm42 (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree. This page is for discussion about the Republic of China article, not for discussion about discussion. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You have been told that the ROC isn't readily comparable with other island-countries. No other country (currently exist in 2012) has relocated its territorial existence in the way that the ROC did, and no other island-country has similar islands like Kinmen, Pratas, etc., like the ROC does. Have you ever tried to understand that? Who's ignoring who? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Who mentioned island countries? I certainly didn't. I don't think anyone else taking my perspective has either. It's irrelevant. The history is irrelevant. What is relevant is that almost all of the rest of the world uses the name Taiwan to refer to the whole country today. Ignoring that point just makes you look silly, stubborn, rude and stuck in the past. What I also understand is that you and several other IP editors here are obsessed with a very narrow issue, and cannot see the damage they are doing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for referring to the wrong argument. That point about island-country was indeed presented but that wasn't yours. I have gone through your comments again and indeed your only argument was that "Taiwan" is the common name for the whole country, and it isn't political. That's how the whole world call this country. It's completely neutral and that's just the name of the country. The statement "China welcomes second term for Taiwan's leader" is 100% clear. It's the common name among 99% of the English-speaking world.
And your responses to the background detail about this country, from its founding across the strait back in 1912, its relocation, its geographical extent as at 2012 beyond the Taiwanese archipelago, its constitution, etc., were: absolute rubbish, unhelpful, obfuscating, fighting 60-year-old wars (you didn't use the hyphen according to standard English grammar, by the way), obscure, irrelevant, off-topic, absolute crap, insulting, politically-motivated pedants, and pointless. And you assert that IP editors aren't experienced. You simply didn't want to go into any detail and to engage in any intellectual discussion.
As a matter of fact you'd even failed to understand that journalistic statement like "China welcomes second term for Taiwan's leader" wouldn't ever be accepted by Wikipedia. That isn't something Beijing can actually say with such wordings, and Wikipedia has an official policy not to endorse or reject ROC's existence as a sovereign state.
You claimed that "almost all of the rest of the world uses the name Taiwan to refer to the whole country today. Ignoring that point just makes you look silly, stubborn, rude and stuck in the past.", but you didn't even reply to my question two days and a half ago at 18:32, 10 February 2012: Do they specifically and explicitly include the non-Taiwan parts of the contemporary republic? It's really time to ask who's ignoring who, and who's ignoring the hard fact and doing the damage. It's perhaps time to follow Ireland's path to submit this trouble to the ArbCom for considerations. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Most references to "Taiwan" include all those territories under the direct current control of the government, including Kinmen etc. See the factbooks and country profiles referenced ad nauseam. Even if some do not, that doesn't affect the fundamental point about what the broad entity is called (and such issues, to the extent that they are issues, would of course still arise whatever it was called). People keep telling you that, and keep pointing out that plenty of countries have similar issues of sovereignty and integration at the margins. The wider issue about overall sovereignty/independence is irrelevant to the name too, and again would arise whatever we call this thing. Also, plenty of countries have come into existence out of nothing or out of other, previous countries; and also have moved their territorial bases or centres over time, even if not quite as dramatically as ROC. Everyone else in the world copes with these difficulties while referring to "Taiwan" in 2012. Wikipedia can too, despite what you happen to think. All your points have been answered to the extent that they ever can be - that's why people are getting p#ssed off with you for continually raising them. ROC is not what the country is called by anyone today - it is called Taiwan. Hence, the WP article that purports to be about the country cannot be called ROC - it should be called Taiwan. Perhaps we can also have a more esoteric article about ROC and its history (indeed we do already of course to some extent eg the History and Government pages), but the basic point here is really very, very simple.
ps: please do not respond with another "what about ...?" N-HH talk/edits 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
If in case you don't already know, one of my questions was that: Are the islands along the coast of Fujian and in the South China Sea ever considered part of Taiwan, on the condition that the term "Taiwan" isn't used as a euphemism for "Republic of China"? My another question was: For how long has it been known as Taiwan? I also asked: How are we going to explain topics like Taiwanese independence movement? All these questions met with answers like silly, stubborn, rubbish, unhelpful, irrelevant, fight a 60 year old war, crap, or vague answers like "addressed in the text". We also talked about neutral point of view and common name issues, and acceptability of exceptions for special cases. The only answer was that it's common, as common as 99% English speakers do, and no one bothered to discuss Republic of Ireland as a precedence. Not even the neutrality issues in the World Factbook was ever considered. Coupled with the problem that some had exhibited quite a lot of misunderstandings about the subject matter, I don't think the discussion here had ever got those fundamental questions answered. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This is precisely the problem. None of those things you mention are "fundamental questions" when it comes to the basic point at issue, but you keep repeating them. Issues about Ireland, outlying islands, history and supposed bias (unless severe) etc etc are simply neither here nor there. You seem to be under the misapprehension that we are here to debate what the article title ought to be, based on detailed analytical argument and debate. We are not. The fundamental issue is very simple - not what this thing ought to be called (or what random WP editors think it "ought" to be called), but what it is called. I'm not interested in having a debate about the first aspect, let alone by way of rehashing the same old arguments over and over again. Nor do we need to. Do you get this? N-HH talk/edits 19:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Those questions are relatively more important than common name. Do you get this? Wikipedia isn't about what lay people thinks about. It's about neutral presentation of hard facts. That's the aim, goal and duty of Wikipedia. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
To put my point my clearly: I want the ROC to be replaced by Taiwan. And I want them to either define all those remote islands as part of Taiwan or to pull out from them. But before that actually happens, don't pretend it has already happened. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
"You seem to be under the misapprehension that we are here to debate what the article title ought to be, based on detailed analytical argument and debate. We are not." - With all due respect, I'm afraid that's an unencylopedic approach and is counter-constructive to any encyclopedia project. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I can lend you a spade if you need any more help with this hole you are digging for yourself. N-HH talk/edits 20:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I did not "assert that IP editors aren't experienced." I pointed out, with very positive intentions, that people who choose not to register run the risk of looking inexperienced. Any mistake they make will be put down by others to the fact that they are only posting from an IP address and therefore probably don't know the rules properly and don't really have a strong background on Wikipedia. I still cannot comprehend the logic of why so many editors on this page remain unregistered. And before anyone says "because they can", that is simply not a reason. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That's plain stereotyping. And please familiarise yourself with WP:Indentation (particularly point #2 and #3) before you cut again in the middle of a dialogue.[19] 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It may well be stereotyping, but don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. (Or don't you understand that yet?) And I would please request that you don't move my posts again. I put it where I put it for a reason. You are the one who has put my post out of logical sequence, but the damage has been done. Unlike you, I'm willing to move forward. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You may perhaps read #2 and #3 of WP:Indentation again. I know that's a shortcoming for not having a registered account. But no you didn't appear to be just a messenger in your remarks at 01:43, 12 February 2012. But anyway, that isn't important. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Netvigator IP, please familiarise yourself with WP:ESSAYS before you try lecturing other editors on conduct. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to discussion re the Article

I've created this break in the discussion as it was getting sidetracked on irrelevant points (General Wiki principles etc). Again, there is no consensus for any change so I do not see where this discussion is going. The Republic of China is far more than Taiwan Province. Hence, the article's name is appropriate. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be the Republic of China was far more than Taiwan, but now is only a little bit more? So while we should have an article on the history of the ROC, when naming the article on the country as it exists today we should also follow the preponderance of usage in reliable English-language sources. Kanguole 11:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't get this argument at all. Even the island of Taiwan is more than Taiwan Province. Is that articles name inappropriate too? CMD (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think 86.45.54.230 means the traditional province. He/she has explained the "far more" here. Kanguole 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the traditional province. That's very in the past. Anyway, as we're not renaming this page "Taiwan Province", that shouldn't be a problem. CMD (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Yup, nothing to do with anything much really. N-HH talk/edits 14:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess he or she's talking about the geographical limit of the province in 1895, between 1945 to 1967, or the Japanese colony, which is the domain of benshengren and aborigines in the cultural and historical sense. And yes the difference between the ROC and Taiwan isn't only about the tiny remote islands, but also the laws brought in by the ROC, the state organs, the constitution, the flag, the coat of arms, the many monuments around the country, and so on and so forth. These aren't only about names, but also values and ideologies. People from the ROC may identify themselves as Taiwanese and call the country "Taiwan" in common speech. But if they're asked whether or not their country has essentially been transformed into Taiwan, that will be a much longer and more difficult story. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For so many reasons, there is no consensus for a change to the article name. 86.42.18.148 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop repeat the same thing again and again. That's counter-productive. If you got any argument, just say it. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The amount of text people have written going in circles on this talk page nearly deserves to be on WP:LAME, along with 'aluminium vs aluminum', 'colour vs color' and others of their ilk. Not quite, but nearly. 86.*, you keep saying there's no consensus for change but that's not what this discussion has been about, and you've been told this more than once. What we're discussing here are our options, and out of those options a formal proposal for change will eventually come about. That hasn't happened yet. Repeating yourself over and over the way you're doing is the argument equivalent of putting your hands over your ears chanting "lalala I can't hear you". You're effectively trying to shoot down a proposal before you've even seen it. That's hardly a collegial way of going about things. Why don't you wait to see what the proposal ends up being before you insist it has no consensus? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
218.250.159.25 - I have already set out my arguments for why the proposed move is not suitable; I have also pointed out several times that there is no consensus for the change. I think the entire discussion is counter-productive is productive is defiend as a good ROC article. But the discussion will go on, it seems, for what I regard as "political" reasons. If you wish to be productive, 218.250.159.25, why not help improve the article rather than pushing this "article name" agenda. Again, the Repuhlic of China is far more than Taiwan Province and the name of the article is approriate. No consensus for change exists. 86.42.18.148 (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm3.svg ... TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hah. Now where's my popcorn? *munch* *munch* -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 15:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
What are your arguments, apart from there is no consensus and the ROC is far more than Taiwan Province? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)