This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
Determine whether Taiwan should be called a 'country' or 'state'
Complete: Consensus has been reached for Taiwan to be called a 'country'. The consensus was 33 for country, 10 for state, and 5 for some variation of state. Here is the page on which consensus was reached
Add a short section about the culture and the geography of the ROC territories (with links to the main articles)
Review alt text of images
Should the role and influence of Sun Yat-sen be introduced in the History section?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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”
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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 [1][2].
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)[reply]
(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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
They would say "the state that had a war with Japan is China" in 2012 - VERY CURRENT (NOT IN 2011)
They would say "the state that had a war with Japan is China" in 2012 - It is known as China (NOT TAIWAN)
They would say "the state that had a war with Japan is China" in 2012 - VERY CURRENT AGAIN (NOT WAS, BUT IS).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Let me see if I can summarize the situation here. There are 3 statements:
Republic of China is a sovereign state
Taiwan is a sovereign state
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits23:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Kanguole09:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You probably mean "biasesAGAINSTcomments 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). Kanguole09:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Kanguole11:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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). -- LukeSurltc10:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. LukeSurltc11:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. LukeSurltc19:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 severalotherarticles 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.) Kanguole12:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits09:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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"[6] 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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits19:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. LukeSurltc00:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? LukeSurltc23:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). LukeSurltc17:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. LukeSurltc17:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits12:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. LukeSurltc23:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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) LukeSurltc23:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Kanguole00:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits11:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits12:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(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. [7][8][9] "Republic of China (Taiwan)" also appears in an Irish statutory instrument. [10][11] 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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits10:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"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 | —Talkcontribsemail10:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits11:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 | —Talkcontribsemail11:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits12:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits21:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits22:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits21:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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?
@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. GotRTalk03:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GotRTalk04:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GotRTalk05:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-HHtalk/edits20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Proposal for binding RFCs
There is a discussion on establishing a set of rules for binding RFCs located here [12]. If anything can use such a drastic remedy, this article might be it. Ngchen (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Republic of China should be re-named and moved to Taiwan
Among those ignorant of the issue, there is potential confusion with the People's Republic of China
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.
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 mostly controlled by the PRC) legitimises the name "ROC".
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. Kanguole23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retain Republic of China as it is, and expand its coverage on the history and geography of all of its existing landmasses, including those outside of Taiwan,
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)[reply]
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. Jpech9522:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
