Jump to content

Talk:Taiwan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by W Tanoto (talk | contribs) at 11:10, 13 March 2012 (→Support: same reason). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleTaiwan has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 9, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 13, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 4, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 9, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 26, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 13, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 14, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 16, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

Talk:Republic of China/article guidelines

Requested Move (February 2012)

– The current Taiwan article treats Taiwan only as a geographic entity, while the WikiProject Countries template for countries is located at Republic of China. When referring to the Republic of China in the modern context as both a geographical and political entity in the English language, Taiwan is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME. Opponents of the proposed move claim that "Republic of China" is the more politically neutral title for the article about the modern political entity; similar claims were made by opponents of last year's PRC / China move. In fact neither name is completely politically neutral,[1] so we should use WP:COMMONNAME to determine the article titles (see WP:POVTITLE).

The subtleties of meaning between the terms "Taiwan" and "Republic of China", and any purported political meaning, should be left to the text of individual articles.Relisting - discussion still ongoing.--Aervanath (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Mlm42 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal:

Usage examples

  • "Taiwan". The World Factbook (2024 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency.. This reference is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style as a source for ”country names”. (§8.43) (see The World Factbook's treatment of Taiwan)
  • “Taiwan country profile”, BBC, article title, 27 October 2011.
  • ”use Nationalist China or Taiwan for references to the government based on the island" and "use the formal name of the government, the Republic of China, when required for legal precision." Associated Press Stylebook 2005, p. 46. This is the most influential journalism stylebook.
  • “Taiwan”, Britannica. This is the title of their entry on this subject.
  • "Interview With Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou", New York Times, Jan. 5, 2012
  • “Over the past three years, [President] Ma said his administration has been committed to easing Taiwan-China ties.” CNA, Dec. 27, 2011. CNA is Taiwan’s official news agency.
  • "The [Senkaku] island group is controlled by Japan but is also claimed by both Taiwan and China." "Taiwan lodges 3rd protest in Japanese island naming saga", China Post, Feb. 1, 2012. Taiwan's leading English-language daily.
  • ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) "Doing business in...Taiwan"
  • Economist "Taiwan’s elections"
  • Taiwan Relations Act "In furtherance of the policy set forth in section 2 of this Act, the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability."
  • Government Information Office (Taiwan) "Taiwan's 2011 tax revenues rose 8.8 percent year on year to a record high of NT$1.76 trillion (US$59.83 billion), spurred by increased business and income tax collections."

So recent English language reliable sources refer to the modern political entity as "Taiwan" (see also this list of sources) to such a degree that it is no longer controversial to do so. As evidence that the term "Taiwan" is widely used to include the smaller islands, and not just the main island, one could compare Google search results, such as in the following case of Penghu: "Penghu, Taiwan" (~191,000 hits), "Penghu, Republic of China" (~411 hits). Per WP:CONCEPTDAB, the article titled "Taiwan" should be about the broad concept of "Taiwan", and not just the main island. Mlm42 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal co-written by:

Responses

State whether you support or oppose this proposal. Please do not respond to other people's posts here; use the "Discussion" subsection below. Thanks.

Co-nominators

  • Support. The most important titling criteria is recognizability, listed first in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The Google results for "Republic of China" -wikipedia suggests that a high percentage of those who search for the term "Republic of China" are looking for information regarding the Chinese government, i.e. they do not identify the term ROC with Taiwan. Vastly more readers search for "Taiwan" than for "Republic of China", according to Insights. Kauffner (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia policy on article titles suggests that the common name should take priority over neutrality or accuracy considerations, and that an article should be located at where readers most likely expect to find it. I am supporting this proposal because people searching for the WikiProject Countries template will seek it at Taiwan and not Republic of China. Wikipedia policy on article titles should be distinguished from policy on article text: while supporting this proposal, I would strongly oppose a proposal to replace mentions of "Republic of China" in article text with "Taiwan" outright in instances where doing so would sacrifice the accuracy of the text.--Jiang (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support - Albeit very very reluctantly. All these arguments are getting nowhere, and it's not right to have a China (PRC) article and a Republic of China (ROC) article, so the overwhelming usage of "Taiwan" of which I was already aware, gives me no reason to neutrally oppose the move.--Tærkast (Discuss) 23:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support 100% support for this move to 100% neutrality. The name Republic Of China is the politically loaded one. The vast majority of those who use the name Taiwan for the whole country have no interest in and often not even any knowledge of the local political issues. Oh, and it's obviously the common name. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. support per WP:COMMONNAME, both as the by far the most common use of "Taiwan" is for the country, and by far the commonest way to refer to the ROC is using that name. The current name is far less widely known and so confusing to many readers. It's not more or less neutral than "Republic of China", just a matter of common English usage.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per WP:COMMONNAME and other comments immediately above. Wikipedia's use of "Republic of China" instead of the common name is pedantic at best and obfuscatory at worst. Just to provide an example that a disinterested reader might encounter before visiting Wikipedia for further info. The article "Ma Ying-jeou, Taiwan’s pro-China president, wins reelection from the Washington Post, a widely-read, mainstream English-language publication, which is a typical full-length article reporting the recent election results, does not mention "Republic of China" as the name of the country at all. —  AjaxSmack  02:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support for all the reasons above and anything I've said for the 8+ years this has been argued about. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  6. Support per everyone above. A clear-cut application of WP:COMMONNAME, in my opinion. I♦A 03:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I think we should use common name according to WP:COMMONNAME. --MakecatTalk 05:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support (albeit reluctantly) in order to break the deadlock and move things forward. However, using the move as an excuse to unilaterally change all references to the Republic of China (e.g. President of the ROC to President of Taiwan) will be strongly opposed. In addition, I encourage all editors involved to chip in Jpech95's Taiwan draft article to ensure a smooth transition which content is acceptable to most. Lastly, all editors involved should start working on refining or renewing the WP:NC-TW guidelines so as to prevent more disputes over titles, referencing and thereof from occurring again. Raiolu (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per WP:COMMONNAME, making ROC into something like the Kingdom of Netherlands and the fifth French Republic is a really good solution iForce= 10:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. The fact that the modern country/state (precise status perhaps to be defined) centred on Taiwan island is overwhelmingly known as "Taiwan" - and not Republic of China or any variation thereof - in every serious reference work, and in media and scholarship, is indisputable. In the absence of any significant reason in this case for us to ignore WP practice of placing countries at their common, short-form name, Taiwain it is. And we don't even need to debate this on a technical or analytical level - greater and more numerous minds have long since done that, and the results are in. N-HH talk/edits 10:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Reference to WP:COMMONNAME has been made already. We don't have to use a country's full or formal title. For example, I live in the United Kingdom. The article title is not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", because "United Kingdom" is the common name in English. And that needs to be noted - COMMONNAME is about what is most commonly used in English by native English speakers. The fact Taiwan's official title is "Republic of China" doesn't matter. Furthermore, one should also note that whilst the country has not changed its name, this was a name imposed on it by the KMT. And arguably the name would have been changed if China did not threaten to go to war over it (and the US and other Taiwan-friendly nations didn't encourage it not to change its name). Even Taiwanese people very rarely refer to themselves as coming from the Republic of China and refer to coming from Taiwan. John Smith's (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I've been watching this proposal develop for a while and I fully support each of the proposed changes. WP:COMMONNAME is the strongest applicable policy. The name is not 'wrong' or inappropriate as some opponents have argued, as even the ROC Government Information Office uses 'Taiwan' to mean the country in its official press releases [2][3]. Also applicable is WP:POVTITLE, as even within Taiwan, the different political parties are divided on usage of both terms 'Republic of China' and 'Taiwan', relating to the ongoing independence matter. Finally, as our article on PRC was moved to its common name China after extensive discussion a few months ago, the ROC->Taiwan move is in line with our naming policies on consistency at WP:AT. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I strongly agree with the nomination. This move would make the title consistent with COMMONNAME and NPOV. Jenks24 (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Republic of China isn't the WP:COMMONNAME for the country - Taiwan is. We don't generally use official names for any other country, we use the common names. While as a matter of process the Taiwan (disambiguation) move should occur first, and should have been allowed to be closed first, there is no reason for this not to be closed shortly after, that move isn't dependent on this one succeeding, and while if this move passes the other will be redundant I don't think that's a massive deal. With regards to publicising this move request, as long as WP:CANVASS is followed there is no issue with mentioning it to gain a wider consensus. Taiwan (or actually Nationalist China, which I've never seen used) is preferred by the AP Stylebook except where required for legal precision. Even in a field like accounting a Google for "Republic of China GAAP" gets a bunch of results about China, whereas a Google for "Taiwan GAAP" gets a lot of relevant results (e.g. http://www.iasplus.com/country/compare.htm). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The passport is actually a better argument for Taiwan as the common name. Why else would the passport include the name TAIWAN as well as REPUBLIC OF CHINA? Celestra (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, naturaly. That's what it's called. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support For too many political reasons. There is no point in promoting ROC anymore, when the island doesn't even collectively see itself that way. They see themselves as an independently managed Taiwan more than anything. Benjwong (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, common name. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per WP:COMMONNAME. — JonCॐ 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - "Taiwan" is the normal English name of this country, and it is clearly acknowledged as a valid name by the government of the ROC (see government website, national currency, national passport...). However, I agree with Raiolu above that the move shouldn't be an excuse to change all references to the Republic of China, especially in political context. mgeo talk 19:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per WP:COMMONNAME, as it's more commonly known as Taiwan. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support as shown by nominators, Taiwan is clearly the common name. It would also be consistent with naming of the China article. Kildor (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Let's do what we can to try to reduce confusion. There is no good reason to not follow WP:COMMONNAME here. I think it is almost always to the detriment of readers when that central policy is chosen to be ignored. I think many readers currently get to the Taiwan article and think have actually found the article about the country which they were looking for. And similarly I think some of those who actually get the Republic of China article also get confused as they may think they have actually either gotten to the article about China or to an article about China before 1949. On the other hand I do think most know the difference between a political entity and a geographical. I don't think many reader who come to the Australia article either think country of Australia only consists of the Australian mainland, or that they are reading the article about only the continent. I also do not believe that any appeals to WP:NPOV are valid, because as I see it, the most neutral stance Wikipedia can take is to take no normative position on what the country should be called, but rather only rely on whatever our sources call the country (i.e. follow WP:UCN).TheFreeloader (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. If voted down, then we probably ought to move China to People's Republic of China to keep things consistent. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  25. Weak support, I've been persuaded that the arguments in favour just outweigh those against, given that the articles in question are re-scoped and re-written appropriately. If this move is enacted however, as noted Taiwan (island) would be a bit of a WP:CONTENTFORK and it should be merged into the Taiwan article. LukeSurl t c 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support as this is the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME usage. TDL (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Per NPOV, COMMONNAME, and in the interests of best serving our readers (the theory of least astonishment). If this is voted down, we should revisit the recent move of PRC to China, as it would be manifestly POV and confusing not to have somewhat parrallel articles for this concept.LedRush (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. This type of overly PR and bureaucratic nonsense is why lots of good editors leave Wikipedia. Seriously, when is the last time you've heard someone in real life refer to Taiwan as the Republic of China? I'd be willing to bet that most people who aren't aware of the PRC/ROC "conflict" would probably think of mainland China if someone was to mention the ROC. The fact the first line of this article reads The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan clearly admits that it doesn't follow the common name policy. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 03:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. I understand the opposition, but our job is not to shape or influence the world outside of WP, but to reflect it. And, for better or for worse, the name most commonly used out there to refer to the topic of this article is Taiwan. Also, to be consistent with the PRC → China move. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Today in 2012 the state is commonly known as Taiwan and the dispute little known; using "Republic of China" creates far too much confusion and goes against WP:COMMONNAME. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I guess it will always be a tricky thing with this place in the world of politics, but by COMMONNAME usage it's overwhelmingly Taiwan. I'm not sure I've ever heard people call it anything else. We could then put in parenths (Official name - Republic of China). Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. WP:COMMONNAME is quite clear and the evidence in this case is conclusive. --Taivo (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Anonimu (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per WP:COMMONNAME. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose as inconsistent with WP:NC-TW. The NC-TW principles were challenged when an activist, who evidently found the "Text should not imply that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China" stuff too restrictive, called for a review of them. Views came in supporting the status quo and the activists, apparently not happy with the direction the wind was blowing, starting deleting some of them. In the end, there was a 28 to 18 conclusion that the NC-TW principles represented consensus which, at a minimum, ought to have meant no consensus which in turn generally means a default keep, but the minority with the axe to grind took it upon themselves to delete the principles anyway citing WP:NOTAVOTE. The activist that had first called for a review then moved the deleted guideline to a separate page and titled it "This is a failed proposal." "Failed proposal" is a highly misleading characterization in my view as it implies a history quite at odds with the actual history of NC-TW and this ongoing mischief is going to be further encouraged if the editing community does not alert itself to this background to the question at hand. Previous steps in the activist campaign have been used to excuse additional steps such that this will undoubtedly be cited as a precedent for all sorts of dubious content changes. This is more than just a move proposal that can be considered in isolation. I might add that the common name argument is not determinative since if it were, "United States" should redirect to "U.S." or "US" or "USA" rather than the other way around.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Not least due to the ongoing move request at Taiwan (disambiguation) and the complete lack of reassurance that content at the new Taiwan article must not, apart from a brief mention in the intro, include any information on those islands which are not part of Taiwan Province, ROC. This is not to mention the inappropriate WP:CONTENTFORK (namely a full article at a separate title, Taiwan (island)) or that the move will fail to be precise, a required for WP:AT, or that there is no primary topic for the term "Taiwan", or something in the real world far more grave and dangerous that were to occur if this proposal were enacted. Also of note is the complete dissonance and lack of harmony amongst those involved in this proposal: Kanguole on one side advocates for brief inclusion of ROC 1912–1949 history at [[Taiwan]], while the others, as far as I know, are mute about this. Due to the gap in specific details that should address the subtleties of this issue (which hardly any supporters of this move are aware of or even willing to acknowledge), this proposal is the only failed one. Also, I echo Benlisquare's concerns regarding the promises some above made during the PRC->China move. GotR Talk 23:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - A change based on common name alone would make "ROC" and "Taiwan" feed into the same article about the political entity now governing Taiwan and previously having governed the mainland. But the proposal also seeks to change the content of the ROC article such that it (a) exists in parallel to the new Taiwan article and (b) contains only a short summary of developments since 1949, which casts doubt about the continued existence of the ROC. The ROC still exists and has not changed its name. All official documents in Taiwan still bear the name ROC. Procedurally, the seven day voting period is much too short for Wikipedia. Most Wikipedia contributors do not check discussion pages once every seven days. Voting should be open for at least 30 to 60 days for ample participation. There is no urgency for this vote. NumbiGate (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (passport image evidence moved to discussion section below, due to it making the response section harder to read at lower screen widths - TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  4. Oppose: Regarding WP:COMMONNAME, I suggest disregarding it per WP:IAR since citing it to support a move to Taiwan opens another dozen can of worms. A title under "Taiwan" can suggest various negative euphemisms, from both sides of the cross-strait politial spectrum, whilst ROC is the de jure name of the sovereign state. Might I add, at the time of the PRC to China move, those in support often made the reassurance that "the move wouldn't affect the state of the Republic of China article"; keeping this in mind, how can one trust the assurances made by those saying that this move to Taiwan wouldn't affect articles such as President of the Republic of China? Fool me once, and its your doing, fool me twice, and its my doing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. First, one of the reason why there are so many materials calling Republic of China as Taiwan is that it is promoted by countries that having closer relationship with People's Republic of China which they don't want to anger PRC so they just call that as Taiwan, following this naming method might not be a neutral move. Also, relationship of Taiwan to Republic of China differ from relationship of Netherlands to Republic of Netherlands or France to France Fifth Republic. Furthermore, no more calling it as Republic of China or Taiwan or even Republic of China (Taiwan) the name is still relativelyb short unlike the full name of the UK, which make it not that necessary to make the change. At the same time, neglecting that should it be called as Taiwan, I think it would be better to move Republic of China to Taiwan (country) leaving the Taiwan as a page that users can choose to view content about the island or the country if they type Taiwan in www.wikipedia.org (btw why all opposing vote and supporting vote are in the same section?) C933103 (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose; the subject differs partially from the geographical location it is presently located within, that is the Island of Taiwan (formerly known as Formosa). Although it is a Rump State, and some consider a Government in Exile, the subject is greater than the geographical area that it presently governs. Changing to the name would, IMHO, be violating WP:RECENT given that the general use of the word China for the People's Republic of China in the United States didn't begin until after the United States changed who it recognized as the government of China, keeping with the One China Policy. I Support the present arrangement where there is an article about the Island under the namespace Taiwan, and there is a separate article about the government under Republic of China. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose The purpose and scope of the proposed resulting rump Republic of China article (compared against the proposed Taiwan article) is very problematic with regards to what the intended distinction between them is supposed to be, considering the goal of minimizing content duplication. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose The official name of the state is the ROC. Taiwan merely refers to the island. Should the United States of America be moved to US or America? The term Taiwan also has a political motive in that it is pro-separatist. Using the official Republic of China name is neutral. --TheAznSensation (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Lots of people disagreed with the meaning. It should not move to Taiwan, but on my support vote in Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation), there is no primary topic on the word "Taiwan". Republic of China is still the article name like Republic of Ireland for Ireland itself, Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo for Congo, as for DRC, Zaire was the late 20th century era of the said country. ApprenticeFan work 08:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Very Strong Oppose Wow, 7 days? Are you joking? Is that a bad joke that should be deleted nonsense? That is an unspeakably brief time period for a move of this magnitude. Put on the brakes, people! Give it 30 days. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Also commits assault and battery on WP:NPOV, since "Taiwan" is a pro-Independence usage (as is Formosa) Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. WP:Common name does not apply here: ROC lays claim to all of China, not just Taiwan and its surrounding islands which it currently controls. Unlike "China"="PRC" which is an arguable case of common usage, in common English usage there is a clear divide between ROC the political entity, and Taiwan the geographical, ethnic and cultural identity. Deryck C. 22:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose. Not surprisingly, yet another attempt from the "supporters" to pass a vote by discussing among themselves and trying to avoid attention from the rest of the Wikipedia community. This will not work; the vast majority of users who are active in this area are vehemently opposed to such a move. Even the majority of people who would be sympathetic to having "Taiwan" as the title of the country article would be appalled by the idea of moving the entire ROC to Taiwan. See archives 17-18 for my rationale for opposing this move. JimSukwutput 08:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose The Taiwan Islands, the area presently controlled by the ROC and the area claimed by the ROC are quite different. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, as per WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:TITLE#Deciding_on_an_article_title: Titles usually use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. I think the move would create some ambiguity, beside the risk of being percived non-neutral.--Pseudois (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose As per user:NumbiGate: "A change based on common name alone would make "ROC" and "Taiwan" feed into the same article about the political entity now governing Taiwan and previously having governed the mainland. But the proposal also seeks to change the content of the ROC article such that it (a) exists in parallel to the new Taiwan article and (b) contains only a short summary of developments since 1949, which casts doubt about the continued existence of the ROC. The ROC still exists and has not changed its name. All official documents in Taiwan still bear the name ROC". 23x2 (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose as this is a self-defining entity. More importantly, RoC specifically doesn't go by "Taiwan" as a common name (if anything, it would probably prefer "China" as a common name, just as the PRC does) except when forced to due to non-recognition issues (i.e. the passport statement below). Additionally, the arguments about the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Taiwan isn't a constituent state of RoC, only a primary part of its geography) or French Fifth Republic (an article about a form of government). Aslbsl (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Would cause more confusion than it would clear. Common name fosters ignorance in this case. Nightw 07:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Very Strong Oppose - Not only on the basis of all the various arguments already presented here in this Oppose section, but also because WP:UCN is very widely misapplied throughout Wikipedia. I also consider it a misrepresentation to number these responses as is being done here, because these are not "votes" to be tallied up. Rather they are WP:!VOTEs: "The exclamation mark in "!vote" is the symbol for logical negation and can be read literally as "not vote". It serves as a cute little reminder that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important." Milkunderwood (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Not much to add since much is added already, but will cite WP:NC-TW. Hanfresco (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - The subject of the article is not just the ROC in its current status as the de facto government of Taiwan, but the ROC which in the past governed the mainland as well. Referring to that physically larger entity as "Taiwan" is nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonAQuest (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 March 2012‎ [4]
  21. Oppose - "Taiwan" and "ROC" are not the same, because the geographical definitions and political meanings are quite different.--CCSX (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak Oppose I agree that the WP:COMMONNAME is Taiwan, however the common name is based on a misconception of an independent state. Whether we like it or not, that misunderstanding is politically loaded and the mutally agreed reality of one country/two governments between PROC/ROC is not as widely known but is the reality. It's a weak oppose since "China" already defaults to PR of China. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. It should not conform to the lesser known populace. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strongest possible oppose - The actual name of the country is "Republic of China". The article should therefore remain at that title. Moving it to "Taiwan" would be (a) inaccurate, (b) misleading, and (c) quite possibly perceived as adopting a politicised point of view. (as for WP:COMMONNAME: what's at America? Not the United States...) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - Per User:RightCowLeftCoast and User:RevelationDirect. --tOMG 05:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - Per User:Jim Sukwutput, User:RightCowLeftCoast and User:JasonAQuest. --Marcushsu (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • This is complicated, because it's much more than a move proposal (see #Proposed distribution of content under titles below). The proposed content for "Taiwan" gives a comprehensive coverage of the country at the location readers will expect to find it, but the proposed "Taiwan (island)" would be a redundant CONTENTFORK. Therefore I prefer the #Alternative proposal below, which would do the former but not the latter. Kanguole 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort-of Support - Republic of China should not be moved to Taiwan, but Taiwan should be moved to Taiwan (island) and Taiwan should redirect to Republic of China. It would avoid confusion, but still have Republic of China in the same place. Liam987 15:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a Canadian residing in Asia. I had always thought Taiwan and China are strictly two countries with only neighbour ties just like United States and Canada. After reading the whole debate I tend to agree with Liam's idea. If that isnt adopted I would oppose the whole proposal. 210.17.196.24 (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • While I take no position on the RM itself, being unfamiliar with the various issues, I do strongly object to those who claim it must be moved to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. This provision is a relative late-comer to WP:TITLE, and the idea that the "most common" name has to be used has been pushed by one editor in particular (User:Born2cycle), often against a lot of pushback. The provision still allows for considerable flexibility in naming: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. ... When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." So, if Taiwan has problems, sticking with the official name, which is also commonly used, is not a problem per WP:COMMONNAME as sensibly interpreted. Also, I strongly object to the process whereby so many of the "oppose" votes have been moved to "challenged"; the basis for these challenges seems worse than flimsy in many cases, and they ought to be moved back. Dicklyon (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Rename If this proposal is accepted, I would also favor adding the disambiguation after the country name, "Taiwan (country)" like we do for different reasons to Georgia (country). (Note: I voted a weak oppose above and this is not an attempt to vote twice, just improve the nom regardless of outcome.)RevelationDirect (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged

I tend to think Salix's post is relevant, but do not propose to challenge Eraserhead1's challenge. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Striking as per this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Republic of China is country name and it not same as Taiwan. Taiwan just a island and NOT a country. --Suguru@Musashi (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Support. I support the usage of the common name to prevent confusion among Wikipedia readers. 114.229.252.184 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted. Also, this anon user has already been blocked for a 3 revert violation. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I note there is politically charged rhetoric by certain Users on who support the move. The reference to the KMT "imposing" a name by User:John Smith is totally against the rules, he also makes an (unsupported) claim about Taiwanese rarely claiming they are from the ROC. He also goes into (again) totally unsubstantiated speculation ({[WP:CRYSTALLBALL]]), claiming that Taiwan "would" have changed its name if China did not "threaten" it. it looks as though the move camp is trying dissassociate Taiwan from any connotation of Chinese, rather than really caring about WP:COMMONNAME.Niyaendi (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • That's a bad faith post. For this section the instructions say "State whether you support or oppose this proposal. Please do not respond to other people's posts here; use the "Discussion" subsection below. Thanks." The post is not a post against the proposal, but explicitly criticises Support posts and posters. It should either struck out or ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT. This change is long overdue and necessary since most people as well as virtually all the news media whether CNN, the BBC or CBS or ABC news, or Fox News, they all just use the common name. 222.186.101.77 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • STRONG SUPPORT. Originally the PRC/ROC situation was given a fair and unbiased discussion, complete with both flags, official names and everything, in the first paragraph of the original "China" article until the recent move in which the PRC article replaced the original balanced NPOV China article. So this current proposed move to use the common name would serve to prevent confusion in the intricate semantics of official names by using the simple WP:COMMONNAME that is used by all the international media press outlets. 114.229.254.215 (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Support. Virtually no one outside of East Asia knows anything about the ROC, they know only about the PRC which is why this move is a clear cut effort to create a clear and precise article that everyone can understand, even those reading Wikipedia for the first time. The usage of the common name is absolutely required as it is mandated by official Wikipedia policy, read here WP:COMMONNAME. 114.229.158.96 (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Support. There is alot of confusion in the terminology used today, let's not confuse things and just use the common name as required by Wikipedia policy, see here WP:COMMONNAME. Also the move would be fair since the PRC article has now started using it's common name of China. 222.186.101.77 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC) (struck out by JohnBlackburne at 20:54, 10 March 2012 [5])[reply]

Discussion

Proposed distribution of content under titles

  • Although labelled as a move, this proposal involves a substantial re-arrangement of content, so I'll focus on the proposed distribution of content under titles. Based on the drafts supplied, the proposed end products are:
    • A new Taiwan article formed by combining the current Taiwan article with most of the content of the current Republic of China article, including the {{infobox country}}. That would produce an article covering the full range of aspects of the country, just like every other country article on Wikipedia, and would thus be a massive improvement over the current split between two articles. Calling this article "Taiwan" would bring us in line with usage in the great majority of reliable English language sources, as well as paper encyclopedias.
    • A new Republic of China article containing the remainder of the current Republic of China article, including the republic up to 1949, a summary of the republic since then, and the modern territorial claims. Such an article would cover the common aspects of the republic throughout its history. There's a possibility of overlap with History of the Republic of China, but it may be possible to distinguish them.
    • A new Taiwan (island) article containing approximately the contents of the current Taiwan article. Since the same text also forms part of the new "Taiwan" article, that would be a redundant content fork, especially since there is also a Geography of Taiwan article, following the normal summary-style structure used for country articles.
In short, the proposed redistribution looks good, except for the proposed "Taiwan (island)" article, which seems to be a pointless content fork. Kanguole 01:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have offered Kingdom of the Netherlands and French Fifth Republic as models for the new Republic of China article, but I envision a stronger history focus than either of these two model articles. There would be possibility of overlap with not only History of the Republic of China but with the countries template at Taiwan. Summary style should be used to limit any unavoidable degree of overlap.
There is no reason for Taiwan (island) to exist. Consider this proposal the equivalent of a merge of Republic of China into Taiwan. Before late-2003, the countries template resided at Taiwan before I moved it over to Republic of China and narrowed the focus of the Taiwan article to be just about the island. From 2003 until sometime around 2010, the Republic of China article sought to cover both the pre-1949 historical entity and the post-1949 existing entity, with corresponding subsections most sections, before someone went along and deleted the pre-1949 material. Though the intended results are the same, when considering the most logical way to preserve edit attribution, I believe a merge would be more appropriate than a move.--Jiang (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanguole, thanks for the summary; yes, that draft article for "Taiwan (island)" would need to be trimmed quite a bit, to avoid unnecessary duplication of content. I think the focus of this RM should be the "ROC -> Taiwan" part of the proposal, which is the more likely to be disputed / controversial. Mlm42 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur regarding the pointlessness of the proposed (island) article. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main problem here is with the new Republic of China article. It seems like it will duplicate large swathes of content from the new Taiwan article, and I don't find the suggested articles to be good models. The Netherlands example doesn't seem relevant at all; can someone explain the intended analogy/similarity? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that unnecessary duplication of content should be avoided. I suppose the analogy in the Netherlands example, is that the main "country" article is The Netherlands, while the article Kingdom of the Netherlands is an article about a closely related (and often informally equated) concept, which is not as widely used, and is less likely to be sought after by readers (see also this section). Beyond that, I don't think you should read too much into the analogy. Mlm42 (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how we can avoid content duplication. Under WP:CONCEPTDAB, Republic of China cannot be made into a redirect, as was proposed under the previous move proposal, and must continue to exist as a separate article. Assuming Taiwan (island) will not exist for long, the amount of overlap between the future Republic of China and Taiwan should be a bit less than that currently between these two articles, so the total mix of content duplication should be reduced by the current proposal.--Jiang (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you say above, there's no reason for a duplicative "Taiwan (island)" to exist at all, and the proposed change is most simply described as merging most of the current Republic of China article into the current Taiwan article. Regarding the residual "Republic of China" article, how would you see that differing from the current content of History of the Republic of China? Kanguole 10:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering about both those points as well. Between a refactored Taiwan article (which will inevitably be to a large degree about the main island) and the existing ROC history and government articles (which both deal with the present day), my thoughts would be that we have everything covered. Having said that, I wouldn't outright object to separate (and possibly fairly short) island and ROC articles, and having them may help bat off complainers in respect of the main issue. Btw I'll take this opportunity to say thanks to everyone who worked constructively on the detail of this, as opposed to simply fulminating on the various talk pages, which has been my preferred contribution. N-HH talk/edits 11:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, "Republic of China" should refer to the historical state. History of the Republic of China is a more reasonable target than Taiwan. "History of Foo" is certainly not a common name article title. It is normally overflow for an article at the "Foo" base name. So History of the Republic of China can get recreated when there is too much material for one article. Kauffner (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of China still exist on Taiwan. The government, the constitution, the military, their symbols, their principles is all part of the Republic of China. This proposal might replace the Republic of China with common name but calling the ROC a historical government/state is out of the question.98.110.211.50 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UnderWP:CONTENTFORK, the Republic of China article must refer to the Republic of China from 1912 to the present, with use of summary style. I'm not sure if you're proposing to purge all post-1949 material, but under policy that would be unacceptable.--Jiang (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

The Republic of China is the official name for the government on Taiwan. The proposal creates unnecessary doubt about the existence of the ROC. (image and caption added by NumbiGate (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reply to 86.42.28.118) Publicize this move request wherever you want, but if you're going to oppose it, do so on more substantive grounds. Shrigley (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reply to GotR) Out of curiosity, what is the "something in the real world far more grave and dangerous that were to occur if this proposal were enacted"? I think it's very narcissistic of us to assume that what we do in this move will have dangerous real-life geopolitical consequences. In any case, Wikipedia policies don't allow us to stop valid, policy-based moves for that reason. And isn't it great that people with "complete dissonance and lack of harmony" on other issues can come together to draft such a move proposal? This is collaborative editing at its finest. Shrigley (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I'm not so sure geopolitical events that actually occur have no effect on moves here. If the PRC happened to successfully invade and annex Taiwan (and even make it part of Fujian) tomorrow, this proposal would have zero standing.
    • And sure, in general it may be collaborative editing at its finest, but the shifting of article content is of utmost importance in merges, which is what this proposal appears to be, and specificities (obv. apart from individual sentences, images) should be ironed out before a proposal comes out. As solid it may seem to others at first glance, this proposal is actually piggishly sloppy for the reasons I gave above. Excellent work (not really), Jpech. GotR Talk 17:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reply to NumbiGate.) Maybe you're referring to Chinese-language documents that bear the name ROC, but even Taiwan government publications use "Taiwan" more commonly than "Republic of China" in English. By the way, this is not a vote, and your contribution will be judged by the strength of your arguments. Shrigley (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shrigley, did you see the passport cover I posted above? It says "Republic of China" in English on the cover. In official English language documents, the ROC government still refers to itself as such. Simply download any of these visa applications and see for yourself: [10] It would be extremely difficult for you to back up the statement that "Taiwan" is used more commonly than "ROC" in official documents. Virtually every official government document in English bears ROC on it somewhere. NumbiGate (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the passport into the discussion section, Numbi, just for readability reasons - on low screen widths the image throws out the bullet point votes and makes it really difficult to see who added the image. If you disagree with this, please feel free to revert. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The British passport says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" on it - our article is at United Kingdom. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The passport is actually a better argument for Taiwan as the common name. Why else would Taiwan be printed there if the official name were also the common name? Celestra (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. I was thinking at first that's why the picture was given. Why would Taiwan be on there for the Republic of China passport if it didn't associate. And I'm pretty sure citizens who don't live on the island still get a Taiwan passport, so right there is shows WP:COMMONNAME for the entire country, not just the island (or at least the territory directly controled by the ROC). JPECH95 02:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to the proposal insofar as it moves the current ROC article into Taiwan and leaves a separate dangling ROC article. A merger based on common name alone would merge the two together. Eraserhead, your reference to the UK article is not on point. In the article entitled United Kingdom, the lede restates the full official name of the United Kingdom -- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; there is no separate article called "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"-- UK and UKGBNI feed into the same article. NumbiGate (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of China passport article said In September 2003, under the administration of President Chen Shui-bian, the word "Taiwan" was added to the ROC passport cover in English (but not in Chinese). The premier when asked during question time in the Parliament stated that this was to facilitate travel and did not change the name of the nation. C933103 (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to Benlisquare)I just want to add to this to say that I was not aware of said promise that ROC would not be changed, but I do know that the people there are not the same people supporting it here, and I will fight along side you to see that President of the ROC does NOT move to President of Taiwan, because that is a political office refering directly to the government (Republic of China), just as President of the People's Republic of China has remained where it is. JPECH95 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the move over there recently, and I am sure that this was influenced very much by it, although from what I've seen from others, even before August people have wanted to have the move. Regardless, this promise, whether or not it existed, was doubtfully made by the same people that are on here now (it certainly wasn't me). JPECH95 02:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the PRC -> China did not directly affect this article. This is a separate discussion; though it was probably inspired by that move. In any case, there was certainly no promise that this page couldn't be moved. Mlm42 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's inject less feelings and more facts into the discussion. There was no "trust" broken, because nobody promised—or ever had the authority to promise—that the ROC set of articles would never change their titles. What was said was that moving "People's Republic of China" to "China" doesn't necessarily mean that a move from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan" is immediately necessary. Some users are disturbed that we have both a "China" article for the PRC, and a "Republic of China" article for the ROC. I am not one of those users, which is why I haven't (yet) thrown my support behind this proposal. Also, anyone could propose a successful move from President of the Republic of China to President of Taiwan regardless of the name of this article, because that's what the post is called in reliable English-language sources. Shrigley (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, that's settled (would have been much easier for me just to have looked at the move), no one ever promised anything. Waste of time then. And I'm going to agree that we need less feelings and more facts, but of course now that you say that, as it's evident in the past, that's going to just cause more reason for people to argue about nonsence. And I'm just stating that in my opinion, if someone does try to prove Pres/ROC to Pres/Taiwan, I will oppose it, not to say that they themselves can't do that, obviously they have the right to do that, I was just stating my opinion for future reference. JPECH95 02:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to TheAznSensation)"Taiwan" is the common name, just as "United States" or "US" is for the United States of America. Furthermore, arguably the use of ROC is not neutral as it implies that Taiwan is a part of China. Even China refers to Taiwan as "Taiwan" because they won't accept it's a de jure state. So by using Taiwan we would actually be avoiding politics. John Smith's (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The People's Republic of China prefers the title Republic of China over the Republic of Taiwan. Beside that both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China view Taiwan belongs to China. PRC views Taiwan as a renegade province not a sovereign state. Calling "Taiwan a sovereign state" means complete independence from China and the abandonment of the ROC's claims to the Mainland. As TheAznSensation said a political move by the Taiwanese independence supporters support the claim "Taiwan is a soveriegn state" which is still a sensitive political matter that the Taiwanese people have yet to resolve for themselves.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Beijing refers "ROC" is original research. You will only see references to "Taiwan" in the official Chinese media. John Smith's (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit to John Smith) I didn't say Beijing "refer" Taiwan as ROC, I said Beijing "prefers" the title ROC over the Republic of Taiwan.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's still original research. John Smith's (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again PRC views Taiwan as a renegade province and the ROC is only a title to them instead a sovereign state. The Anti-Secession Law says very clearly if Taiwan declares independence from China the PRC will invade it. The ROC's claims to the Mainland means Taiwan is not independent from China which contradicts Jpech95's proposal as he says "Taiwan is a sovereign state".Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're not proposing a "Republic of Taiwan". Discussing that misses the entier point of what Jpech95 was saying. There is an entity here; this article calls it the Republic of China, the vast majority of the English world calls it Taiwan. Currently, the lead of this article describes this entity as a "unitary sovereign state". If you think disagree that "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan (see below), is a unitary sovereign state", then that is a content decision that has absolutely nothing to do with this move request. CMD (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commonly doesn't interferes with the fact that the Republic of China is the sovereign state. This proposal is calling "Taiwan a sovereign state" is wrong because first the Taiwanese people have yet to decide their fate for themselves which this proposal is and second this proposal has ignored the ROC's claims to the China and history. I haven't missed the point of this move because I have not involved myself in the vote. Only proving that TheAznSensation's point is correct.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point that the state is commonly called Taiwan. It means the same thing as "Republic of China" does in this article. "The Republic of China is a sovereign state" has exactly the same meaning, and validity, as "Taiwan is a sovereign state", and vice versa. This is exactly what common name does. CMD (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is the point of Taiwanese independence?Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
De jure independence. John Smith's (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per that article, its point is "to formally establish the Republic of Taiwan...form a Taiwanese national identity, reject unification and One country, two systems...and obtaining international recognition as a sovereign state." In summary, a political movement to advocate for legal change. Which isn't important in this titling discussion. CMD (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because it's a further example of a subtlety overrun by driving the WP:COMMONNAME truck through every yellow light encountered without so much as slowing down. The common name for the Republic of Ireland is Ireland yet the Wikipedia community understands that that does not settle the issue. I believe the community would have retitled this long-standing article prior to 2012 if this were so straightforward.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware that title was decided on a vote, and it was several years ago (and discussion was until pretty recently prohibited by Arbcom. Its not exactly a great example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a truck it's one that protects its metaphorical cargo (the article?) from pointless political and legal minefields. And again, Ireland the state is disambiguated from the Ireland the island, which was determined to be the primary and broader topic. Also, please see that as an example of how "Republic of Ireland" hasn't replaced "Ireland" in every instance of the article text, something some people here think we are trying to do with this article. CMD (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Brian's comment about "Ireland" being the common name for Republic of Ireland, the reason that the RoI article is not called by that name is that part of Ireland is part of the UK. It would be very confusing if Ireland were the name for the country when it's also the name for a divided island. Whereas the whole of Taiwan is under control of one government. John Smith's (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reply to JimSukwutput)In reply to Jim, that is an incredibly bad faith comment. All the relevant projects and the Wikipedia Pump have been informed. How on earth can you claim that there has been any attempt to hide this from the community? You should withdraw that comment, it does your argument no favours. John Smith's (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus you seem to say that you might be OK with having Taiwan as the "country" article, while opposing this move. But that's the whole point - this page purports to be about the country, but is titled "ROC", a name rarely used for it these days. That's what we're trying to finally sort out, in line with every other serious reference source in 2012. N-HH talk/edits 16:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reply to Stuartyates) I simply don't understand the objection. The Taiwanese government does not actively claim any territory other than what it currently controls, apart from a few minor island disputes. The territory that the constitution claims is irrelevant, as it's a historical document that has not been edited due to diplomatic wrangles. That's not a reason to not refer to the country as Taiwan. John Smith's (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And I do wish someone opposing would address the fundamental point and do so with a serious, substantive reply - why does every single other [?] decent reference work and encyclopedia in 2012 talk about "Taiwan" when dealing with the country but Wikipedia refer to "ROC"? Why? They all cope with the complexity and history under that name; why can't we? And, regardless of any theorising and debate about that question, our policies of course very clearly say we should simply follow that precedent. N-HH talk/edits 11:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Less ambiguous, as Taiwan may refer to Taiwan island (the way I for example use the concept most of the time), Taiwan Province (ROC) or Taiwan Province (PRC). Regarding neutrality, I wrote that there is a "risk of being percieved non-neutral" (I don't have a personal opinion on it). I think the 18 pages of discussion on this talk page are the best example of recurrent neutrality issues. I hope this helps clarify my previous comment.--Pseudois (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but as ever with island nations where 99% of the landmass is the main island, it's a blurred line with no such clear difference; and surely the unqualfied use of "Taiwan" as a specific reference to the main island, to the specific exclusion of outlying territories, is pretty rare? That's what all the sources suggest - that Taiwan the state/country is the primary topic. Few titles are entirely ambiguous - but surely the far bigger ambiguity is with the current title, which might lead people to think this page is about China as most people know and understand it? As for neutrality, this title - used by pretty much nobody except the Taiwanese government, and even then only occasionally - carries the implication that the Taiwan government is the legitimate government of all China. Surely a title used by every major reference work and world body is more neutral than a title used only by the entity itself, with that implication? The eighteen pages of discussion are merely evidence of the extent to which WP process allows endless bickering over the blindingly obvious, unfortunately. The rest of the world has already done the hard work on this and plumped for "Taiwan", but we seem intent on revisiting it, as if we somehow know better. N-HH talk/edits 15:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is your point of view. I respect your opinion although I don't agree with various assumptions you have made to come to such conclusions. Anyway, WP is not a forum. Thank you,--Pseudois (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know Wikipedia is not a forum. I'm not using it as one, either in the broadest sense or in the specific sense of making personal or original assertions on this topic. I just look at what the world calls things and call on that; and I can assure you it is not simply my "point of view" that everyone else calls this place Taiwan. It's the opposition to a change that seems to be based more on what those editors personally think it ought to be called, discussion about Taiwanese Blue-Green politics, and grand claims about what the word Taiwan really, really means. None of them have shown us any outside, reliable sources to back up those claims or why, even, these points are relevant. By contrast, the move based on the simple application of WP policies on naming and is supported by clear evidence of terminology from a variety of sources. N-HH talk/edits 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Pseudois. I don't really understand your point. Far more ambiguity is created by the current status quo given that most people have never heard of the Republic of China, and might assume that it was confused with the country commonly known as China. Additionally the claim of non-neutrality seems a bit strange. Is the use of the word "Scotland" non-neutral with regards to the possibility of Scottish independence? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point either. Do you mean that most readers who come to this page by typing "Republic of China" have never heard about the "Republic of China"? So why would they type "Republic of China"? I don't understand your analogy with Scotland either. Is Scotland an island? Is there a scottish government claiming to be the legitimate goverment for the whole UK? I don't think this move proposal has anything to do with Taiwan idenpendance movements. The risk of some people perceiving the proposed move as non-neutral is more than obvious. The point is as simple as that: we have to make a choice between WP:Commonname and WP:NPOV. I am favoring WP:NPOV in this particular case, but don't have any personal opinion on the topic itself.--Pseudois (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People will come across this page - and references to it - in myriad ways besides typing "Republic of China" into the search box. And it will, undoubtedly, be confusing to many of them, at least initially. The Scotland point - if I can presume to respond here - is simply as an illustration that a name is not necessarily intrinsically loaded in the context of an independence/sovereignty dispute, as some claim "Taiwan" is. And no, we do not have to "make a choice" between common name and npov. This is the entirely false issue that is being pushed by some opposers - 1) no one has presented any serious evidence that Taiwan is not neutral (or, at least, as neutral as any other name - especially "Republic of China"). Could you help with that?; and 2) the policy on common name, and the subsequent section in wp:title, in any event has provisions accounting for neutrality or the purported lack of it. I suggest you read it. N-HH talk/edits 01:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is amazing how many people seem to completely forget about the existence of WP:POVTITLE which makes claims of NPOV against the move an rather weak argument.
With regards to claiming all of China, Taiwan doesn't really do that anymore to any remotely serious degree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reply to Salix)First, this is a different move request from the one at Taiwan disambig. Some people raised similar arguments, but the impact was quite different. Second, I don't understand why you're opposing the move. I think people here are frequently forgetting that they need to explain their votes and link it to policy. John Smith's (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reply to Aslbsl)That sounds good - except that in reality Taiwanese sources refer to the People's Republic as "China" these days - see Talk:China/Archive_14#Sources for more details.
  • Additionally I don't believe we usually name things according to what the target wants rather than the WP:COMMONNAME - see Armenian Genocide which I'm sure the Turks object to very strongly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "except that in reality Taiwanese sources refer to the People's Republic as "China" these days" - (?) I thought I said as much. Re: Armenian Genocide, that isn't a parallel case per se. Obviously RoC's self-designation is not the end all and be all. But Taiwan isn't either of the names that it prefers. It is actually the name that it opposes when possible. Aslbsl (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plenty of evidence has been presented which shows that in many circumstances the government perfectly happily uses the name Taiwan. As does the rest of the world, incidentally. You'd have to provide strong evidence that it "opposes when possible" (although I'm sure some individuals would). CMD (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. My assumptions were incorrect. It seems that the gov't isn't as vociferous in its opposition as I thought, though the point made about the passport (and that I remember from elsewhere) shows me that their opposition does exist on some level. I still oppose on the grounds of the page moves and separations, conflating geography, gov't etc., but I acknowledge that while problematic, those are theoretically surmountable issues. Thanks for your time. Aslbsl (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • With regards to the passport they generally contain the legal and full name of the country rather than the common name. The UK passport says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" on it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to Night w that's a two part assertion, without any justification, evidence or reference to policy. I can't see how "Republic of China", given both its similarity to "People's Republic of China" and very rare usage, is less confusing than "Taiwan", which isn't really very confusing at all anyway. Or that use of Taiwan "fosters ignorance", given that it is the name used by pretty much every serious and authoritative source - or indeed that supposedly "fostering ignorance" is one of the listed criteria for overruling a clear case of common name. N-HH talk/edits 11:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to Dicklyon AFAIK commonname or some variation of it is quite well established, and has been followed since time immemorial in most other country articles. It is not simply a conspiracy on the part of one other editor you do not like. In any event, the parts of it that you quote also assume that we are dealing with competing common names. We are not. Republic of China is almost unheard of when it comes to the modern quasi-state. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? And you ask what we should do "if Taiwan has problems". I know you haven't come down against a change, but what problems does Taiwan have, apart from that some WP editors don't like it? N-HH talk/edits 02:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to Milkunderwood. Er, what "various arguments" have been presented against following the rest of the serious world in referring to "Taiwan"; or at least any serious or policy-based arguments, other than mostly "I don't like it" and unsupported - and irrelevant - claims about neutrality or ambiguity? N-HH talk/edits 02:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to latest opposes .. again, does anyone have any evidence that there is ambiguity, confusion or bias inherent in the use of Taiwan? Quite a few people have now asserted it, but none have provided any serious authoritative third-party analysis to verify it; or that the last of those matters anyway for this issue. Are Britannica, the US state dept, the British FCO, virtually all of the world's English-language media, including in both China and Taiwan - even the Taiwanese government much of the time - labouring under a "misconception" or grossly biased when they all refer to "Taiwan" for the country/rump ROC, which has the main island as 99% of its territory? When people say "Taiwan", that is what they overwhelmingly mean; when they want to refer to this thing, the topic of this article, they overwhelmingly say "Taiwan". We have article text, and other articles, to worry about and deal with the complexities involved here. For now, all we need to know about is commonname and primary topic - and the evidence from virtually every single serious, authoritative sources. Easy. And we don't need "Taiwan (country)" because, unlike Georgia, there is no significant or substantive ambiguity. N-HH talk/edits 16:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
State Department and FCO aren't unbiased, and the same rule on Britannica for the Ireland, Micronesia and Macedonia articles aren't accepted by Wikipedia. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Picking a couple of examples and claiming bias doesn't really change the argument. The 'rule' for the other examples you mention is wikipedia's WP:Disambiguation guidelines (purely stylistic), which other publications may not have. CMD (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to Naming Conventions

Dollars to donuts after this move is made, people will start wanting to change President of ROC to President of Taiwan under WP:COMMONNAME, it's the way it's going to go; there are already plenty of references to Ma Ying-jeou as "President of Taiwan". This will not end well where NPOV is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "there are already plenty of references to Ma Ying-jeou as President of Taiwan", how can it "not end well"? Wikipedia reflects what the sources say, and that's the whole point here. The name Taiwan is completely NPOV. Most of the people around the world who use that name have no interest in and often have no awareness of the politics you are presumably concerned about, so using that name cannot be a POV position. One cannot take a biased position on something when one neither knows nor cares about it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After People's Republic of China was merged into China, the Naming Conventions were rewritten so that there would be no wholesale move of articles from "...of the People's Republic of China" to "...of China". It is possible to support this proposal and oppose those moves as I have done to reflect usage by reliable sources. For example, using Taiwan is more appropriate when referring to the political entity geographically while using Republic of China is more appropriate as part of the name of institutions and documents.--Jiang (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I had said this myself just an hour ago. I entirely agree. Just because we want to move ROC to Taiwan just not mean that the President of ROC gets moved to President of Taiwan. That's evident from what happened in China's move. And if anyone does try to move President to ROC to President of Taiwan, or anything else akin to that, I would oppose that for one reason: Searching for the President of Taiwan and President of ROC are the same, searching for Taiwan and ROC are different, and the article already says that the Republic of China is Taiwan. Besides that, I would still use the term Republic of China in a specifically-governmentally related way, which is evident at the proposal's article. JPECH95 22:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds would you oppose a change from "President of the Republic of China" to "President of Taiwan" as per WP:COMMONNAME? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But the requested move proposal you co-wrote gives no indication of the view you've stated here that a consequence of this would be an over-write of NC-TW. And John Smith's says below that this move decision is going to be used to support changes across Wikipedia. It is this sort of lack of disclosure that should be objected to whatever the merits of the particular point that is being advanced under these tactics. I should add that I don't believe that Jiang's "people searching for the WikiProject Countries template will seek it at Taiwan and not Republic of China" has weight because that can be done over there without a name change here. Whether the rest of Wikipedia uses Taiwan or ROC can be dealt with on a case by case basis on the rest of Wikipedia. The double bracket Republic of China bar Taiwan double bracket formula can be used wherever necessary.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian. While a consensus at this RM may be used in future discussions, that is different from automatically making other changes without further discussion. This RM is only about these articles, and has no direct implications for other articles. It may lead to other changes, but they will need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, after this RM is closed. Mlm42 (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Further to Kauffner's comment, the naming conventions are largely derived from how articles are titled in Wikipedia. If we refer to the state as "Republic of China", naturally that will affect how it is referred to more widely in Wikipedia. If, however, the title is moved to "Taiwan", the naming conventions will be changed. You don't put the cart before the horse. John Smith's (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Someone deleted my comments. I'm reposting) Dollars to donuts after this move is made, people will start wanting to change President of ROC to President of Taiwan under WP:COMMONNAME, it's the way it's going to go; there are already plenty of references to Ma Ying-jeou as "President of Taiwan". This will not end well where NPOV is concerned. — Preceding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reply to Brian Dell moved from Response section.) There's nothing mysterious about the background, it's visible in an IP editor's extensive alteration of the poll results and close decision here, by a Hong Kong IP user. Of the 28 votes you think contributed to the conclusion, 11 were from single-purpose IP addresses from Hong Kong ISPs, almost none of which had edited on anything outside that specific discussion, and that are known to be used heavily by a particular user who is banned from the project. Those sockpuppet votes were removed in due course per WP:DUCK as they hold no weight. At the time of the close, the conclusion was 14 to 15, not 28 to 18. Your statement that a "no consensus" result on the question of whether a section has consensus to remain is absurd; if there's no consensus that a section has consensus to remain, it means it has no consensus to remain. Policies and guidelines have higher standards than articles. From WP:No consensus: "in a discussion regarding a section of policy or guideline, "no consensus" means that a proposed section should not be added. If the discussion is about a section already in the policy, that section should be removed". TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note on Mlm42's (the editor who introduced this Requested Move asking who supported the entirely one-sided argument he presented) Talk page a call to "just ignore all IP editors from Hong Kong (as we have at Talk:China and other places)." The problem with this is that it is the job of the invited previously uninvolved closing admin to decide how to weight, not self-appointed vigilantes. None of the arguments against NC-TW explained just what wrong with it such that it needed to go. Mlm42 argued over there that "it seems apparent from the discussion at [another article] that..." while over here Mlm42 declares, in a reply to me earlier in this section, that this RM is "only about" this article as opposed to the rest of Wikipedia. In other words there was just an appeal to keep sliding down the slippery slope over there, while over here I'm told there's no slope to be concerned about. See here for an example of a properly closed discussion, and specifically the "there being no consensus for deletion, the page is kept by default" part. That essay you link to is simply out in left field, as was pointed out on that page's Talk page. In any case, deleting "Text should not imply that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China" was a clear violation of WP:NPOV such that I do not accept your implication that a pillar of Wikipedia can be ignored not merely by a consensus to ignore but even by the absence of consensus to respect.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on the validity is noted, as well as the single objection to that section made three years ago. Clearly multiple editors disagree with you. Secondly, your characterisation of editors who participated in the discussion as "activists" and "vigilantes" betrays your bias in the matter and undermines the objectivity of your argument. Thirdly, your NPOV argument is a non-sequitor: the only way simply removing an instruction could introduce POV into the guideline is if there was another point of view there that now has undue weight. What other point of view regarding the naming of Taiwan exists in our current guideline? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that NC-TW was recreated on its own page as a "failed proposal" suggests that even those who want it deleted considered it more analogous to a page than a section but, more importantly, I'd note that, contrary to your contention that "multiple editors disagree," the number of editors disagreeing with the single objector on that Talk page is even lower than one (as in zero!). Unlike you, however, I'll grant that this may be due to the obscurity of the essay. Compare the number people who have edited that essay since 2007 with a real policy. If you can get that essay, and in particular that section, elevated to policy I would concede the point, but I don't believe there is even a modest chance of that happening given the way policy discussions have been working for years. If deleting and editing what others have written on a Talk page without permission is not vigilantism show me at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments where this is authorized. What's the other POV? That Wikipedia should adopt an asymmetric policy with respect to PRC claims to ROC controlled territory and vice versa. When I asked for "an explanation" for why "Text should not imply that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China" was deleted, I was told that "'Taiwan is not part of the PRC' is a minority position" and warned against "delegitimizing China's [that is, the PRC's] claims and administrative structure [re Taiwan]"--Brian Dell (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say where it is that editors disagree with your interpretation, so pointing to the essay talk page is largely meaningless. For clarity, editors disagreed with your interpretation when they supported the removal of the text from the guideline pending further discussion, an action that was performed or reinstated by more than one editor. I have no reason to address your misdirection about essays and policies as it has no relevance to the discussion. Deleting or striking talk page comments is covered in the second bullet point in the very link you provided: "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies" (emphasis mine). Instantnood is a banned user who has extensive IP activity trying to circumvent his ban. Preponderance of evidence indicated that the vast majority of IP addresses who commented (11, per my comment above) were from Hong Kong IP ranges that are known to be used by that banned editor, many other addresses of which have been blocked previously. The comments were altered in line with our talk page guideline. You're free to disagree with the conclusion that multiple editors came to regarding the evidence, but you have no cause whatsoever to accuse people of vigilantism. I suggest you go and brush up on WP:AGF and I strongly suggest you retract your accusations. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that essay "has no relevance." I would think there would not have been so many complaints about the manipulation of that Talk page if the measures taken there were as uncontroversial as you suggest. Blocking and banning etc should be left to a closing admin who can do an authorized investigation using tools like Wikipedia:CheckUser.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I plainly said it was your misdirection that had no relevance. Stop being combative and intentionally misreading comments, Brian, it is not productive and does more to damage your argument than it does to support it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (another reply to Brian Dell.) I object to being called "an activist" on this issue, and consider it a personal attack. First of all, I was not always opposed to NC-TW; I even helped to move article titles to comply with the standard. The big problem with NC-TW came when People's Republic of China was moved to China. NC-TW was based on the premise that "both the ROC and PRC have equal claim to China". When this claim came under scrutiny in the China move, we discovered that this idea had no basis in English-language reliable sources. That's the context in which many users, and not just me, came to question the NC-TW guideline. When we discounted the disruption of the sockpuppets of community-banned user Instantnood, the "no consensus to keep" result is clear. I didn't cite any lines of the guideline that I opposed when I asked for a review, so your idea that I asked for a review because I singularly found "Taiwan is a part of..." "too restrictive" is entirely speculative, and also a personal attack. This move does nothing to slip down a slope of assuming PRC sovereignty over Taiwan; in fact, by equating Taiwan with the ROC instead of keeping it as an island of ambiguous sovereignty, it climbs up the slope and makes such assumptions more difficult. Shrigley (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere I asked for an explanation for why you and others wanted "Text should not imply that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China" deleted and you indicated that you wanted claims that Taiwan is a "part of the PRC" given the green light (as I just noted above). It's the segue from the asymmetric ordinary usage environment to this substantively asymmetric position with regard to the claims of the PRC and the ROC to the territory effectively controlled by the other that constitutes "activism." As long as the "ambiguous sovereignty" of the ROC remains in the real world it ought to remain equally ambiguous on Wikipedia.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, if you insist on this incivility, you give me no reason to respond to any more of your comments. Unfounded accusations are a form of personal attack, and it has been suggested to you by more than one editor here that your comments regarding vigilantism and activism are unfounded accusations. If you have any intention whatsoever to participate in good faith discussion of this matter, please cease using accusatory language. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observation on IP editor 86.42.28.118

Can I just point out that 86.42.28.118 has been canvassing for feedback on the move request purely on China/Chinese talk pages (it looks like he's trying to muster opposition by his selective messages). He also started editing suspiciously recently. Should he be classed as an SPA like 119.237.197.247? John Smith's (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ISP for 86.42.28.118 is Eircom in Ireland, so not HK like 119.237.197.247. Kauffner (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant if he should be tagged as an SPA - his location isn't especially relevant (is it)? Also I just wanted alert people to the canvassing, which I felt was quite blatant. John Smith's (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other than commenting at Talk:Hong Kong which I think is borderline the other locations they commented at seem perfectly reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of heat, zero light CMD (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the amount of garbage posted from many "old time" IP addresses on this topic it's harder than usual to respect any content from an IP address. I've given up trying to differentiate between them. My mind just doesn't work that way. They just merge into a confusing blur. Humans give their children names rather than numbers for good reason. If there are new IP editors contributing here I strongly and firmly recommend registering very quickly so that their posts gain some attention and respect. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I won't respond to remarks that are not in keeping with Wikipedia principle of assuming good faith etc; Nor will I respond to yet more attacks at IP editors generally. Specificially, this is what I posted above in relation to the ongoing vote:

Oppose - I am also concerned about the propriety of the procedures being followed here; Has this proposal been adequately publicised? I believe it should have been flagged well in advance, and then opened for comment on a fixed flagged date. As it stands, I could well have missed that this poll was even going on.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.178.193 (talk • contribs)
@HiLo48: "I've given up trying to differentiate between them. My mind just doesn't work that way." - That's just like saying, "My wallet has been stolen buy a black man. Ever since, I've given up trying to differentiate between them." If you have trouble assuming good faith and engaging in the community in a decent and humanly manner, I suggest you either fix up your attitude issues, or leave altogether. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's nothing like saying "My wallet has been stolen buy a black man. Ever since, I've given up trying to differentiate between them." I gave reasons for my difficulty. It's about numbers, not skin colour. Most people have skin, and names. Most don't have numbers as their primary identifier. I still haven't seen a good reason for an experienced editor not registering. BTW, to someone not familiar with them, Chinese characters aren't very good identifiers here on English Wikipedia either. HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48 many people around the world can read and understand English. You have been nothing but insulting to us, ROC supporters. The ones who went in an argument with you have never called you names or swear at you like you have. Respect our views in this sensitive matter.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a name with Chinese characters is fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: So, in essence, a summary of your post. Because it's never your fault, right? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the main issue at hand, the IP did not break any rules regarding WP:CANVASS. The purpose of a discussion like this is to gain input from the wider community. Posting on various article talkpages, WP:CHINA et cetera is fine, posting on specific editors' talk pages (especially those with partisan views) is not. For example, if the IP had posted on a dozen user talkpages of users known to be pro-ROC, then that is potentially a violation of the rules. Keep in mind that this move discussion isn't just for your super secret club. So far 80% of !votes are those who have posted in the ROC talkpage at one point in their life, and thus have the ROC talkpage on their watchlist; this is by no means "wider community discussion". Of additional note, the original wording by the IP was, to some variation of, "wider participation from the community is desirable, feel free to participate", not "HEY GUYS, VOTE OPPOSE, DO IT FOR FREEDOM THESE GUIZE R NAZIS". I don't see how that supports a particular side, nor how that qualifies for "gathering votes". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you think what I did was basically ok. I am curious. Why do you think the Hong Kong post is "borderline"? My logic was that it is a part of "Greater China" so to speak and so its editors could well be interested in what was proposed re the ROC article. Thanks. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Need to appropriately notify Wiki Community

Re the immediate above, obviously I rightly regarded this vote as requiring to be flagged. I flagged that a poll was going on (not asking people to vote one way or the other) on the Wikipedia Project China page (which naturally pertains to Taiwan); the PRC page as that too obviously relates to Taiwan and the Hong Kong page for the same reason....Ma Ying Jeou was even born there. If there is an agreed list of places where this topic should be flagged, I would welcome that. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that WikiProject:Taiwan should be notified, and its probably not unreasonable to mention it on the village pump assuming that there have been discussions around this topic as long they have at China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of note the Taiwan Wikiproject has been notified. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you think what I did was basically ok. I am curious. Why do you think the Hong Kong post is "borderline"? My logic was that it is a part of "Greater China" so to speak and so its editors could well be interested in what was proposed re the ROC article. Thanks. Agree that the Taiwan project page should be notified - and it has been. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sections by ban-evading editor collapsed

This move request has attracted a lot of "voters" who only care about the title of this single article. They don't care about the content of this article and related articles, and the titles of other articles. Yes this article can be easily renamed, but that's going to leave a whole mess to the rest of Wikipedia. It's going to create a lot of ambiguous situations where no term will be precise and accurate. No one has yet to suggest any practical solution to prevent the mess. 147.8.102.172 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC) (IP blocked for ban evasion)[reply]

Credibility of the proposal

User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan got lots of errors even in the lede. The island of Taiwan had never been ruled by the Ming dynasty (but only a Ming loyalist after Ming had fallen). And the size given, 36,008 km², is for the island of Taiwan but not the entire ROC. The credibility of the proposal is in doubt. (Furthermore, nominators of move requests don't normally vote. By the same token the co-movers of this move request should not vote.) 147.8.102.172 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC) (IP blocked for ban evasion)[reply]

Reason being for the area, is we want Taiwan to represent the country, not the island. As for Taiwan not being ruled by the Ming, it never says that it was, but rather says that it was ruled by Koxinga, the Ming loyalist. JPECH95 12:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The draft says "Besides the island of Taiwan, the state also governs Penghu, Quemoy, Matsu, and other minor islands, a total area of 36,008 km²", and "The Dutch East India Company had a trading post on Taiwan in the 17th century. It was later ruled by China's Ming and Qing dynasties.". The hard facts are that Ming dynasty never extended its governance to the main island of Taiwan (they stopped at Penghu), and 36,008 is the figure for Taiwan including Penghu. The figure for Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, Matsu, Pratas, etc., is 36,192. If this is going to be an article on the country, but not just Taiwan including Penghu, then 36,192 should be used.
I have not gone through the article. But with such errors within the first two paragraphs of the lede of the draft, as as demonstrated by statements like "Reason being for the area, is we want Taiwan to represent the country, not the island.", it's doubtful whether the co-nominators of the move request actually understands the complex nature of the subject matter. We should stop this move request. We should go through RFC first and get back to the move request procedure according to the RFC results. 147.8.102.108 (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed just now that Kauffner fixed the errors that I pointed out. [11] But no one dares to admit here. Is the proposal reliable? Credible? Trustworthy? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Recentism

It's rather apparent that WP:Recentism is disregarded in this move request. 147.8.102.172 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted. (IP blocked for ban evasion)[reply]

The lede of WP:Recentism reads "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention.." 147.8.102.108 (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
I think the move proposal is consistent with the advice of that essay. Mlm42 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom rulings re: Ireland and Macedonia

Do they apply here? As a matter of principle they obviously should. 147.8.102.172 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC) (IP blocked for ban evasion)[reply]

Both were to do with a commonname conflict leading to an unclear WP:Primary topic. We don't face that problem here. CMD (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ireland case is relevant for comparison since since part of the present dispute is over Island-vs-state nomenclature, but the resolution was basically holding a structured RfC, which is what's already happening here. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Macedonia case is relevant too since part of the dispute was over cultural-geographical region vs country. Taiwan here is a cultural-geographical region that excludes Quemoy (including Wuchiu) and Matsu. Neither island groups were part of the 1895 cession to Japan and therefore were never part of the Japanese colony. Matsu and Wuchiu got different languages from Taiwan. In my opinion we should stop this move request. We should first go through RFC or ArbCom, then back to move request according to RFC decision or ArbCom's ruling. 147.8.102.108 (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a far greater difference between the two Irelands than the two Taiwans, and in the Ireland case the island covers a greater area (conceptdab-like material), as opposed to this, where it covers a smaller area. As seen below, there are even calls to merge the two Taiwan articles together. As for Macedonia, much of the dispute was classic Greek objections to one country taking the title of a much greater area, and contrasting with their province of Macedonia, which does not overlap with the country. Again the country is a smaller area than the other meanings, and there is no article for some abstract "cultural-geographical region", but merely articles for regions which have had that title throughout history, all disambiguated.
Either way, arbcom is a last resort, often to solve massive widespread edit wars. There's no need to go there, and it makes absolutely no sense to have an RFC first. CMD (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same issue. The two concepts of Ireland do not cover the same area. The two concepts of Taiwan are likewise non-coterminous. 147.8.202.87 (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that distinguish the "Republic of China" from Taiwan (island or physical locale)

Numerous comments have been made about how English language sources rarely refer to Taiwan (state) as the Republic of China or that sources make no distinction between the Taiwan (island) and Republic of China. These commenters should review English language documents prepared by or for the government of the ROC or state-owned companies of the ROC. In those documents, especially laws, regulations, contracts and legal documents, these distinctions are readily made.

  1. For example, the official English language version of the Constitution of the Republic of China refers to the country only as the Republic of China; this includes amendments to the Constitution enacted in the 1990s, e.g. the provision on recall: "The final recall must be passed by more than one-half of the valid ballots in a vote in which more than one-half of the electorate in the free area of the Republic of China takes part."
  2. The ROC Income Tax Act, amended June 25, 2003: "For any individual having income from sources in the Republic of China, consolidated income tax shall be levied in accordance with this Act on his income derived from sources in the Republic of China."
  3. The country's English language visa application website makes the distinction between ROC and Taiwan the place. -- "Information on Republic of China Visitor Visas" -- "Foreign nationals, who hold ordinary passports or other legal travel documents and who intend to stay in Taiwan for no more than six months for the purposes of transit; tour; visit relatives; undertake visits; undertake inspection tours; attend international conferences; conduct business; pursue short-term study; undertake short-term employment; undertake short-term missionary work; and engage in other activities in the ROC as approved by MOFA."
  4. The Cross-Strait Relations Law, enacted December 29, 2003 uses "Taiwan Area" and "Mainland Area" to refer to distinct regions governed and/or claimed by the ROC. "Those who, between November 2, 1987 and February 19, 2001, went to the Mainland Area and continuously resided there for over four years and consequently became People of the Mainland Area, but who previously had household registrations in the Taiwan Area and do not have household registrations in the Mainland Area or do not hold passports issued by the Mainland Area, may apply to recover their status as People of the Taiwan Area and return to reside permanently in Taiwan." Taiwan is used here as a place, not a regime. Taiwan Area is used to define the region controlled by the ROC including the island of Taiwan but also surrounding islands. When referring to regimes, the law makes distinctions between ROC, the state, the Mainland, an unrecognized regime, and foreign entities that are not part of the ROC: "Vessels of the Republic of China as referred to in Articles 28 and 28-1 of the Act shall mean the vessels listed under Article 2 of the Law of Ships; Mainland vessels and civil aircraft referred to in Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Act shall mean the vessels and civil aircraft registered in the Mainland Area, excluding military vessels and aircraft; Foreign vessels and civil aircraft referred to in Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Act shall mean the vessels and aircraft registered at a place other than the Taiwan Area or the Mainland Area."
  5. Consider the English language stock share offering prospectus for Chunghwa Telecom prepared by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and UBS Investment Bank in 2006. The cover page of the prospectus describes Chunghwa Telecom as "a company limited by shares in the Republic of China" and says "the American depositary shares" sold in the offering "are not being offered in the Republic of China." Page 3, of the prospectus, goes on to say: All references to "Taiwan" are to the island of Taiwan and other areas under the effective control of the Republic of China. All references to "the government" or "the Republic of China government" are to the government of the Republic of China. All references to the "National Communications Commission" are to the National Communications Commission of the Republic of China. All references to the "Securities and Futures Bureau" are to the Securities and Futures Bureau of the Financial Supervisory Commission of the Republic of China or its predecessors as applicable." "ROC GAAP" means the generally accepted accounting principles of the Republic of China We publish our consolidated financial statements in New Taiwan dollars, the lawful currency of the Republic of China. For more recent examples, see the Company's annual filing, dated April 2011 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
  6. Under Taiwan Relations Act enacted by the United States government in 1979 defines the term Taiwan as a geographic entity, as people residing in the geographic entity, and as a political entity in terms of the Republic of China: "the term "Taiwan" includes, as the context may require, the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores, the people on those islands, corporations and other entities and associations created or organized under the laws applied on those islands, and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities (including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof)." Note how the Act refers to the government as the "governing authorities" on Taiwan. This because the U.S. government can no longer recognize the ROC government as such. But the governing authorities on the island of Taiwan has not changed its name and has not been replaced by any successor governing authorities. It remains the Republic of China. In fact, in subsequent court filings in the United States, the formal name of the state is still used see, e.g., Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419, 1424 (9th Cir. 1989).

NumbiGate (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely none of that is a meaningful argument against the simple fact that in the native English speaking world the country is almost universally known as Taiwan, which is the primary point here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda depends on what you read right? If you read something other than the news, you might learning something new. Just kidding. The list above goes to show (1) the Republic of China remains in use in authoritative English sources and (2) The Republic of China still calls itself such in its official documents. If you think the more commonly read media reports should determine the article title, I'm not going to stop you. But my objection remains against the dangling ROC (based on the Netherlands and Fifth Republic) that would somehow remain after the proposed merge. That would suggest the ROC doesn't exist in its current form, which would be misleading. NumbiGate (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The news is for the laymen proles that aren't experts in the main topic. Legal documents are the black magic of lawyers and policymakers that are actually written with the intention that they are read by people who know their stuff. I too would use Paralithodes camtschaticus if I were writing a scientific journal, whilst using Red king crab if I was the owner of a seafood shop. I too would use ntoskrnl.exe if I were writing a report to my boss if I was working in the IT industry, but use Windows NT kernel if I were writing an article for, I dunno, Engadget or something. I'm an undergraduate physiotherapy student; whilst I would use the term six-pack when talking with friends at the gym, I'd use the term rectus abdominis when I'm in class looking at dissected corpses. "Taiwan" is the term for the proles, "ROC" is the technical term. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and it can afford to be more technical than other print and electronic media. And HiLo48, I know I've said this point before, inb4 "stop using irrelevant examples, it's distracting from the main point" like last time; I think the differentiation between technicality and commonality is very important. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Benlisquare, that's misleading. Some specific articles on species of animals use the Latin terms, but we also have articles on polar bears, giant pandas, etc. There is no rule on Wikipedia that the "technical term", such as you put it, has to be used. But if you want to move giant panda to Ailuropoda melanoleuca I suggest you get started... John Smith's (talk) 07:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of these cases are the sort of thing where "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" would be used.
Additionally while in Chungwa telecom Republic of China is used pretty frequently, the term Taiwan, which is defined to be equivalent in the document seems to be used even more frequently.
I'm sure that on legal documents Bill Clinton's name is spelt out William Jefferson Clinton or William J Clinton. Our article is at Bill Clinton which is because we use the WP:COMMONNAME not the technical name. While with species we do quite often use the technical name, that isn't how we roll with countries where in the vast majority of cases we use the common name. In fact this is the only exception that hasn't been to Arbcom. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Clinton on Wikipedia doesn't have another article dangling at William Jefferson Clinton or another one entitled Bill Clinton (1946-1992) (aka the Arkansas years). The proposal here plans to have separate Taiwan and ROC articles after the merge, which is the point of my opposition. NumbiGate (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The situation we are in at the moment is the equivalent of the "Republic of China" article being "Bill Clinton the post presidential years", with "Republic of China (1912 to 1949)" covering "Bill Clinton president of the United States". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that these do not prove much - I don't think there's ever been any dispute that on some occasions, especially in documents emanating from Taiwan itself, that ROC is used for the country/state that is the topic of this article, or that references to Taiwan can, occasionally, be to the island specifically; or indeed that ROC sometimes is used to refer to more of an overarching political/historical concept, above and beyond the rump state (which in fact is an argument in favour of renaming this particular article, but never mind). You never get unanimity in the use of any term. The point is about the overwhelming predominance of both a) "Taiwan" being the main term used when people want to refer to the country; and b) "Taiwan", when used, being a reference to the country not just the island. If people really want to trump or disprove that, they're going to have to provide some reputable "meta"-sources that analyse and assess usage, and explicitly confirm that Taiwan for the country is either minority usage or outright incorrect, rather than merely provide examples of usage that appear to contradict that assertion. That's what's being asked for here btw. N-HH talk/edits 11:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ps: in any event, having reviewed them a little more closely, point 3 talks about "in Taiwan" (if it meant the island only, wouldn't it say "on Taiwan"?); points 5 & 6 seem rather clearly to demonstrate that (as in most general usage of course, as already demonstrated) Taiwan is very explicitly defined as being the wider geopolitical entity, not just the geographic island. N-HH talk/edits 12:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re the "layman proles" argument. Wikipedia is for layman proles, not scientific or legal experts. Plus, the suggestion that sources such as the NYT, FT or Economist are casual or sloppy when it comes to terminology, or written by people who do not know what they are talking about, is just silly. As I've said elsewhere in this ranging argument, no, news sources do not definitively define usage of terminology and, especially at the tabloid end, their overall narrative language is not always suitable for an encyclopedia; but when it comes to the former, they're a pretty good guide as to common, general usage of the sort we should be looking for. And, in any event, it's not just the media that use China/Taiwan by an overwhelming majority. This is all really clutching at straws. N-HH talk/edits 09:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Kingdom of Bahrain and Bahrain Island are clearly very different articles. The Kingdom of Bahrain calls itself Bahrain in both arabic and english, which is why the common name Bahrain is used for both country and island. The Republic of China does not call itself the republic of taiwan. Taiwan is a physical location, an island. An even better example is Great Britain. Great Britain refers to the island the country is one, like Taiwan. The official name of the country, the United Kingdom, is used for the country's article, while Great Britain is kept enirely separate. Taiwan and the Republic of China should also be kept separate.Niyaendi (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The official name of the UK is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". This is not the title of that article. CMD (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan (island) or Taiwan Island

Move Taiwan to "Taiwan (island)" or "Taiwan Island" ? Which one is better ? --111.251.198.139 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. If this move is made, with the content redistribution described in the proposal, the island article would be a redundant CONTENTFORK. Kanguole 17:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Iceland the political unit = geographical unit. But it isn't the case for Tasmania (the island versus the state) and Taiwan (the island / former Japanese colony versus the contemporary ROC). 202.189.98.132 (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geographical unit meaning? CMD (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

I would like to advance a simpler variant of the above proposal:

The result would be the same as the above proposal, except that it would not leave a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK at "Taiwan (island)" (see #Proposed distribution of content under titles above). Kanguole 13:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to want to look at this idea further, Kanguole, but I think it would be best to deal with that after the main proposal above has been dealt with. The main thrust of the proposal is the ROC->Taiwan move and I think if we can get that performed first, it should be fairly easy to clean up any miscellanea afterwards. If the current proposal goes through I'm certainly interested in participating in a discussion on the '(island)' issue as I think your argument does merit further investigation. I just don't want to bog down the main proposal with what may end up being multiple 'alternate proposals', as other discussions I've participated in that do that end up with all of them failing just because the voting is so fractured. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TechnoSymbiosos. As it stands, we have a country article here, and a theoretically-island article at Taiwan. This proposal shifts the country article to its commonname. The value of the island article (which is a rump article caused by splitting off country information, as far as I'm aware) is a separate discussion. It's one I'm happy to have (although perhaps after some respite!), but not one I would like to further complicate discussion here. CMD (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have half a country article at Republic of China, a government without a territory, and the other half at Taiwan. Your proposal above is to merge most of the former and all of the latter at "Taiwan", after a couple of moves. When you merge all of an article, you shouldn't leave a copy behind, as that creates a content fork. Kanguole 01:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An unfortunately rather good assessment. However, while not fully completed, this page has the essence of a country article (ie it claims to be one). The island article tries not to be. The plan isn't to merge all of it, as that would be too much detail for the country article (although Economy is already a duplicate anyway), so (again theoretically) it wouldn't be a content fork so much as a Main article-type thingy. Once the move is done however, it would be worth seeing if the content there can stand on its own, or whether it belongs in Taiwan, Geography of Taiwan, or other applicable. CMD (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going by the drafts you've offered, and a content fork is what I see: there's no text in the Taiwan (island) draft that isn't also in the Taiwan draft. Kanguole 01:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "alternative" is the wrong word for this proposal. This is elaborating on the side issue of what happens to the lemma Taiwan (island) after the move. Moving ROC to Taiwan, and Taiwan to Taiwan (island), is no more a content fork than the current ROC/Taiwan situation. Of course, when content is copied from Taiwan (island) to Taiwan, it should be removed or altered so that the Taiwan (island) article is not simply duplicate content. Kauffner (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have misunderstood: this proposal does not involve any move, and in particular does not involve putting anything at "Taiwan (island)". Kanguole 02:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oic. You've now struck you're earlier "Support" for the move. Sorry I didn't keep up. I guess this proposal doesn't have much practical significance after all. Kauffner (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to remind everyone (especially Kanguole) that the purpose of having the draft articles was to fix inconsistancies in the final articles, and I know overlap was a problem, now seeing WP:CONTENTFORK I see that this could be a problem, but still it's not that much of a problem as people want to make it seem, especially once we can determine what will go under which article. If we can all refer to the main topics of each of the articles proposed, it should be no problem. Am I understanding this correctly (remember I am still kinda new at this...) JPECH95 04:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The drafts are very helpful, as they give us a concrete idea of the result of this complex proposal. We can see clearly that the proposal is to turn two articles into three; they also show clearly that one of the three, Taiwan (island), is wholly redundant. Kanguole 09:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A different alternative proposal

A new alternative proposal: "China" gives you the article on the "People's Republic of China" - so, "Taiwan" should redirect to the article "Republic of China" - move what is currently at "Taiwan" to "Taiwan (island)" (See proposal of User:Liam987 above at Talk:Republic_of_China#Other: "Republic of China should not be moved to Taiwan, but Taiwan should be moved to Taiwan (island) and Taiwan should redirect to Republic of China. It would avoid confusion, but still have Republic of China in the same place.") TuckerResearch (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply another version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. The most common name for Taiwan in English is "Taiwan". It's been conclusively demonstrated and follows Wikipedia WP:COMMONNAME policy. It's not rocket science, folks. Taiwan is called "Taiwan" in English. That's where the article should be per Wikipedia policy. --Taivo (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as argued above, most people in English refer to the USA as "America," yet the article is at "United States." Most Americans refer to the United Kingdom as "England." And since Americans outnumber the British, should we move that one? And what would you do about Congo? This proposal redirects Taiwan to ROC. A good compromise, I think. (And "IDONTLIKEIT" is an essay, not a policy, so stop brandishing it like it is; and, this is a thornier issue than you're making it out to be.) I personally don't care if it changes or not. I'm good either way. TuckerResearch (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that in the cases of America/United States and United Kingdom/England you're talking about two arguably equal common names. That is, neither of the names is clearly more commonly used than the other to refer to the topic in question, so we look to other factors beyond WP:COMMONNAME, like WP:PRECISION, to decide what the title should be.

But in this case there is no contest - clearly "Taiwan" wins hands down over ROC in terms of which is more commonly used in English to refer to the topic of this article, so, per COMMONNAME, we should go with Taiwan.

Make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that Most Americans refer to the United Kingdom as "England"? I would definitely want to see a source for that claim. And I don't know what you're on about with United States. That's not it's official name anyway, so what on earth are you proving? And stop trying to complicate things. The common name is Taiwan, plain and simple. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I'm not "on" anything, so go fuck yourself. TuckerResearch (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't care what's decided. I was just trying to offer a compromise. At least Born2cycle was cordial in his reply. TuckerResearch (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just had a communication failure with the English language. There's been an awful lot of that in this thread. I wasn't suggesting you were "on" anything, but you were certainly "on about" something. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

HiLo48, in response to your comments at 07:17, 13 March 2012, do you have any evidence that the current pope is male? I would definitely want to see a source. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a really weird post. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Even in death and beyond it he held the attention of the world until the cardinals elected a man from Germany, Josef Ratzinger, to the Papacy. Honestly, what were you trying to prove here Jeffrey? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 10:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of "SPA"s

I'm seeing some horrible faith tagging going on here. User:Cobrachen is a long-term contributor on the Chinese Wikipedia. In fact, this user has been on Wikipedia longer than most of you have. Could users please not go trigger-happy with the {{spa}} tagging whenever you all see red links? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the SPA tag, it doesn't seem consistent with the user's enwp contributions, though his sporadic editing and no obvious link to zhwp probably mean this was a good faith tagging error rather than bad faith as you imply. I also removed your inline response as you've said the same thing in this section here and responses aren't really intended in the voting section. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That user has a total of 28 edits to English Wikipedia; the vote above was the user's first edit since another more request vote last August. It was not tagged in bad faith, because this user counts as a single-purpose account. Other language Wikipedia's have different policies and conventions, so edits there are about as relevant as contributions to any random website on the internet. It seems likely to me that Cobrachen is responding without a good knowledge of English Wikipedia's policies and conventions; that's why I tagged their vote. Mlm42 (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a convincing argument is presented to do otherwise, I'm planning on re-tagging the account as an SPA. In other words, read WP:SPA, and tell me why this user doesn't qualify. Mlm42 (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how many edits he has on EN Wiki, he has been a long term contributor on the Wikipedia project, which is a project that spans multiple languages. Calling this user an SPA is no more than an insult to him/her, due to the negative connotations of being an SPA. To some degree, it puts this person on the same level as the alleged User:Instantnood sockpuppets, and many users, unaware of Cobrachen's amazing contributions to the ZH Wikipedia, may actually be given the wrong idea. This user has been editing Wikipedia for a very long time, and has all the authority to express his opinion regarding a contentious issue on Wikipedia. This person has only made good-faith correction edits on the EN Wikipedia, and has deep knowledge of the policy-knowhow of Wikipedia having been here for so many years; I don't see why his contribution to this discussion is being shunned simply because he edits ZH Wikipedia more than EN Wikipedia. If I were to go to a non-English Wikipedia and participate in discussion regarding a contentious and significant issue that would potentially affect the main language Wikipedia that I come from, I too would expect that my word would be treated humanely and respectfully, and that I would not be discriminated based on how much I contribute to certain language Wikipedias. Keep in mind that what happens on EN Wikipedia affects all other language Wikipedias as well; the PRC to China move has caused similar moves on other Wikipedias, and whatever decision made here does have an effect on the ZH Wikipedia as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28 edits is admittedly low, but it's over such a long period of time and a reasonably diverse range of topics that I don't think this is a clear cut SPA example, personally. SPA says "a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person was referred to Wikipedia by an outside source, but it isn't evidence that the person is an SPA", and I think it's more likely that he may have been canvassed (as Schmucky edit-conflictedly mentioned before me) than that he's an SPA. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations of SPA within this instance are preposterous. Wikipedia projects use a universal account login system so that the same user authenticates to the English Wikipedia, English Wiktionary, and Chinese Wikipedia on the same account. What we see here does not meet the definition of a SPA, which is an account solely created for one purpose. I mean, do people even read the pages that they link to? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to reply to someone else? I just said I don't think he is an SPA. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about this discussion in general, it wasn't directed towards you. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with the message you left on his zh-talk page suggesting he create an en-user page, by the way. This is probably a good idea, and linking to some details about his zh contributions would be useful. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we shouldn't tag here (and I think the tags for non-Hong Kong based IP's are dubious), we should be welcoming and respectful towards people from other projects. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree we should be welcoming, I want to make sure the closing admin is aware that a significant number of votes have come from users who have not contributed very much to the English Wikipedia, and are therefore are less likely to have this project's policies and conventions in mind. But the existence of this section is hopefully enough to alert them of that fact. Mlm42 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Single-purpose account should be designated based on contributions to all Wikimedia projects, which at the end of the day all have the same reason for existence. Wikipedians should be discriminated against based on their contributions or the lack thereof, not the language of their contributions. I might add that if long time contributors to the Chinese Wikipedia think that just applying WP:COMMONNAME would constitute an oversimplication of the complexities and subtleties involved, this ought to be cause for pause for editors based on the other side of the world.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, how do you know that all or even the majority of these rarely editing contributors are experienced Wikipedians? You're making an assumption, possibly because they support your position. Second, a lot of the comments are just "oppose". There's no rationale, or if there is it's limited to "ROC = official name = best article title". That's not an argument against renaming. Third, and perhaps most importantly, you're not addressing the issue of canvassing. Why are these editors suddenly popping up here and all opposing the renaming? Doesn't it strike you as strange that none of these people are for renaming? John Smith's (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't it strike you as strange that none of these people are for renaming?" - User:Makecat is a user on the ZH Wiki, from the PRC (according to zh:User:Makecat), who has created 1 FA, 3 GAs, 69 DYKs, 414 created articles and 13675 total edits on the ZH Wiki, in addition to being a patroller and rollbacker on the ZH Wiki only (which suggests he has the most experience there), and predominantly edits ZH Wiki. This user has !voted in support of the move proposal. Therefore, by deductive reasoning, your hypothesis that all users from ZH Wiki are canvassed into voting against this proposal falls apart. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Makecat has been making various edits on en.wiki for over a year now. Not a prolific amount, but far more than Cobrachen and Cravix. Also, no-one has suggested every zh wiki user has been canvassed to oppose. What they have questioned is what brought the editors who seem to have very little to do with en.wiki here. CMD (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. I never said all Zh editors have been canvassed. I was talking about why editors that have little or nothing to do with the English project are suddenly popping up. Can you explain that? John Smith's (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings up a different question is there canvassing happening in the other language wikis? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
That's a good question. Why are these editors with few or no previous edits to the English Wikipedia suddenly popping up here? John Smith's (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of an alarmingly large number of IP editors from Hong Kong, which should all be struck, have there been that many others? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far 86.42.28.118, 24.22.232.117 and Cobrachen. I would also observe that TheAznSensation and especially 74.82.68.144 are not super-regular editors here. I don't see anything in either's editing activity that would suggest they have this page on their watchlist. TheAznSensation is not on the China Project's members' list. So I think it's worth asking why these users suddenly appeared. After all, there are no IP editors currently backing the proposal, and as far as I can see all the supporters are fairly regular English Wikipedia editors. John Smith's (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add User:Cravix to that. Some IPs have been here for awhile, but when accounts on other wikis start popping over to place a vote here it's worrying. CMD (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also MakeCat and iForce who haven't edited much. There are probably others, I'll add to this as I have time to review their histories. span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP above. What you say looks reasonable, do you want to post to my talk page to explain your last article edits? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that he's talking rubbish. Both MakeCat and iForce have made a large number of edits recently here. John Smith's (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the WP:[insert policy here] standard on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Celestra has also not edited much before, so we should add that individual to the list. Also, CharlieEchoTango.
Seriously, what are you going on about? None of these users have been editing anywhere as infrequently as the editors I and Chipmunk have flagged. John Smith's (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with the IP is their last 2 article edits, one of which was pretty clearly vandalism an hour before xe edited here. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, I don't want to be accused of bad faith by someone, but might I suggest that the last few posts from the IP have been diversionary? I think we need to get back to considering why these editors are popping up out of nowhere to simply "vote" and then disappear again. John Smith's (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that you do. The IP's recent vandalism definitely suggest to me that you ignore the posts from that address. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(@JS:) I don't mean to make a bad faith accusation, but it seems to me that a handful of you are only scrutinising the oppose voters and turning a blind eye to those that support the proposal that you support, and using first SPAs, and now canvassing, as an argument towards why you are right, and the opposers are wrong in this move discussion. When opposers appear, people seem to jump to it immediately, and when it's a supporter, I get the feeling that it's "what's the point in pointing out he might be a ___? He supports my view, after all". I get the feeling that if this proposal doesn't end in a move, some of you will make the argument "this discussion didn't end well! It was completely sabotaged by SPAs/canvassed users/etc!" and will refuse to acknowledge a loss. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't be more wrong, I've scrutinsed the edit history of all the supporters. I can't find a single one that is an SPA or had not edited for a while before this move request was made. If you can show that any of them are SPAs, fine. But at the moment the SPAs are against the motion. That's not my fault, it's a simple fact. And you, like other opponents of the move request, keep skirting around the fact that a majority of the opponents of the move are SPAs or otherwise aren't regular English Wikipedia editors. So how do they know all about this move then? They're not going away, more and more keep coming. And they're all against the move. Targeted canvassing is against the rules and completely distorts the result. So, yes, if the closing admin(s) was/were swayed by their "votes" (they shouldn't be, but it's possible) then I would say, "hold on a minute, those comments should be discounted". On the other hand, if there was consensus from established English Wikipedians against the move then I would support that. John Smith's (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before someone wants to tag me again with this so called SAP tag, please think of this: Wikipedia is a very large project that includes people over multiple languages and time zones. You may not know a user name from another language doesn't mean this user account has no contribution to wiki or any project. In addition to this, the fundamental ideas here, I believe, also include respect other users' opinions. Since Wikipedia is using one account for all languages, simply assuming someone you don't know is a single purpose account is just like assume every one with dark skin comes from Africa.

On the other hand, this discussion and outcome could impact other language and create more problems than you can image. There is a photo shows how the name is used for the passport issued from the government of ROC as an evidence. I would suggest leave this alone since this, to lots of people from the other side of pacific and you don't know, is very political driven and could become even more flamming than you have seen. Perhaps some time in future is a better time, but definitely not now.

Other than editing in zh wiki, I was also one of the web team members of Wikimania 2007. So, as a good faith and trust your judgment, I will leave as is for now.-Cobrachen (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, a single purpose account (SPA) is one that focuses heavily or exclusively on specific topic areas, such as "Taiwan", or "Cross-Straight Relations", or "The New York Yankees". It has nothing to do with the number of edits a user makes but rather the diversity of his edits. Nevertheless, I think we have already decided here that you don't qualify as an SPA so there's no need to be overly defensive. Second, the fact that some editors - particularly those from China and Taiwan - insist on taking politics into account is an express reason in favour of deferring to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE. Politics has no bearing on the decision-making process on Wikipedia, and arguments founded solely in political reasonings are typically ignored. We deal with facts, statistics and evidence here, not with whether the red team or the blue team deserves to win the match. Your suggestion to 'leave this alone' is acknowledged but respectfully declined. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinions and expression on Wiki guidelines. However, allow this being discussed like this is no way to avoid showing this is political-driven. To not use ROC in formal terms by some countries is due to political decision. To suppress voices from ROC is the official role plays by PRC government and media. I believe Wiki's guideline is not to judge or decide things only based on political reason or situation. However, this does seen to happen under this circumstance.

On the other hand, a very clear move on Wiki of this topic may impact other languages and actually push the fire down to other languages and projects. En-Wiki is not an isolated environment and been looked up by other languages as a reference. I think consequence of the outcome is something you should not ignore.

Also please consider this: you can walk away no matter what the outcome of this move and no one can blame or take you responsible, but the foundation can't and they can take harm if legal actions are taken due to this. I am not threatening but just express some possible truth.

Just my 2 cents here and hopefully we all can take an open mind and not stuck down others opinion just because it is convenient to do one way and not thinking of the consequences. Thanks.-Cobrachen (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, Wikipedia does not bow to threats of legal action. Second, the idea that it could be sued successfully is a joke. It is not illegal in any jurisdiction to refer to the RoC as Taiwan. I'm sorry, but it's fairly clear that your objection is political. That's not something that cuts any ice here. John Smith's (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"First, Wikipedia does not bow to threats of legal action." - Actually it does; the famous FCKGW-*****-*****-***** license key for Windows XP was taken down by legal action, as was the AACS encryption key via an action by Sony, albeit temporarily. See also WP:OFFICE. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no legal threat over Windows XP keys. The full key (now useless) is in the history of relevant articles. It was removed by regular editors because WP isn't a piracy enabler and the full key isn't necessary to discuss the topics in an encyclopedic manner. The AACS key, I believe, was removed on the same grounds before the WMF legal counsel said it was a bad idea to include it. I don't believe Sony made any threats.
Irregardless of the XP/AACS topics, it is ridiculously absurd to think there is some legal issue here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Absolutely, there's no threat of legal action. It seems like some opponents of the move are becoming ever more desperate with their "arguments". John Smith's (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sensitive matter you are doing of course people are going to take legal actions against this, if it's successful, as I warned months ago. Because of inexperience with this subject of course you are going to accuse us of being politically bias. Your side, however, is leaning towards Taiwanese independence with that first line "Taiwan is a sovereign state". When did Taiwan become a sovereign state? I only recall the Republic of China retreating to Taiwan after losing control of Mainland China due to the Chinese Civil War, but it never truly lost the Chinese Civil War either. However, due to those claims, the ROC has to China, Taiwan belongs to China which both the ROC and PRC agree to. DPP wants Taiwan's sovereignty and the independence of Taiwan from China.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but it's so funny to think someone would take legal action against Wikipedia for renaming the article. Where and when can we expect such a case to be filed, assuming the article is renamed? John Smith's (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really would advise dropping the stuff about legal action Typhoonstorm. Seriously, it does look silly. And this isn't about independence, it's simply about the name for a thing (which no one is proposing should be "The totally, very definitely independent Republic of Taiwan", where some of these objections might have a point). We're just trying to follow what the rest of the world does in naming things, as we should. If you have an issue with the "sovereign state" wording - and I'm not entirely happy with it, although it seems more accurate at least applied to Taiwan rather than to some putative still-legitimate government of all China - that's an issue for article text, whatever the article is called. N-HH talk/edits 17:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am agreeing with Cobrachen. This is stating Taiwan is a sovereign state that causes a lot of red flags to go up and could cause a lot of havoc. You keep telling us to move on; when we keep telling you it's sensitve. You keep saying it has nothing to do with Taiwanese independence because it's a mere title change, but much of your side doesn't realize it does point to Taiwanese independence. But I'm done arguing with you.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, if we can refer to the Armenian GENOCIDE on this project without the world burning down by Turkish nationalists, we can certainly refer to a country as Taiwan. John Smith's (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted that saying "Taiwan is a sovereign state" is an issue. But I also said, correctly, it's an issue for article text not title, and will be an issue whatever the article is called. Currently, this page opens by saying "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan (see below), is a unitary sovereign state". So we have that problem regardless of any rename; yet we don't hear anyone complaining about that, so long as they get the main, minority-use title they want. Which just goes to show how irrelevant the point is. You are indeed done arguing, if all you have got to tell the rest of us is how you personally interpret use of the word "Taiwan" and its supposed deeply loaded significance, rather than anything about how the vast majority of reputable, reliable sources use it - ie as simple descriptive terminology. N-HH talk/edits 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention the Armenian Genocide, that reminds me. Does the German Wikipedia have an obligation to report the IP addresses of users that make holocaust denial posts, as required under German and Austrian law? I see warning templates on certain DE Wikipedia talk pages, but I'm not sure whether actual policy exists regarding the matter. If that is the case, then Wikipedia does bend to local and international laws. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@N-HH If your side knew what they were arguing against then your side could have avoid bringing up sensitive subjects or at least handle better in this move but personal opinions like Shrigley's comment of how he called us "living in the past" and many of HiLo48's statements and your constant tellings of us to move on when the issue is sensitive is effecting my views of your side negatively. But as stated in this news article Legacy debate as Republic of China marks 100 years from BCC News views are conflicted about the ROC and Taiwan however the article does say "Taiwan's government and most people, however, strongly believe the ROC is a legitimate, sovereign country, despite claims to the contrary by China and only about 20 mostly small countries officially recognising it as such.". Just be more respectful in this move as it is a sensitive matter.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@李博杰: I doubt it does. Wikipedia does bend to Florida law and United States law, as that is where the servers is based. At any rate, "This move may result in legal repercussions" is not an argument that holds any water.
@Typhoonstorm95: Note how in an article explicitly discussion the ROC and how it has continued for 100 years, the government is still called "Taiwan's government". This massive common usage is what this move is trying to fix. Because the views are divided it's far better to not take them into consideration, as that will make our name choice political. CMD (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already said I was just express some possible truth, not threatening and hopefully you can read my statements more carefully. Even though legal action itself may not results any difference, the process itself is a pain and every users will suffer from that. I believe this applies to any topics and editing and we should be more aware of consequences from our actions.

Back to the this topic, from my observation of international events and some statements here, the action and proposal here is clearly matching what PRC is trying to do to claim the so call "One China" political policy. So before some of you trying to say others' opinions are purely political, could you share some of your thoughts regarding how to separate this from a so obvious political-driven issue? I believe if some of you can express that pretty well in clear term, there is a good chance to have more people to accept your ideas, instead of more argument.

Let me say this again: what I am trying to say and do here is to help you to form a better understanding among different groups, which come from all over the would. Also, bring us to the same page and understand the possible impact is also important in the communication and reach out process. Communication and understanding is a two way street, not just you talk and I listen. Keep an open mind and we all can benefit from it.-Cobrachen (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as I see it that pretty much every "oppose" - quite apart from any SPA issue - starts talking about "neutrality", "official names", whether a rename is part of some sort of bid for formal Taiwanese independence (although, oddly, others object on the grounds that, by contrast, it's a bid to imply subordination to Beijing) etc etc. We get into these complex analytical debates about what Taiwan vs ROC "means" at some existential level or in some purportedly substantive sense. This is missing the point. It's simply about the name - and the name used by nearly every English-speaking reference source available for this entity, in 2012, is "Taiwan". If people have a problem with that, they need to start a campaign aimed at Britannica, Whitaker's and virtually every other encyclopedia or reference book/site, government or otherwise, most news media - even those in Taiwan and China - and 1001 other serious authoritative sources. Once those all change their practice and start referring primarily to ROC, come back here and point us to that evidence. Until that happens, all this talk page verbiage and debate is so much whistling in the wind and basically totally off-topic. This is actually quite a simple issue. N-HH talk/edits 17:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
N-HH makes a good point. I think a lot of people here are in denial about how Taiwan is normally referred to. John Smith's (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Cobrachen's insightful comments shed more light on the justification behind many (if not most) of the "oppose" votes. That is: in other languages, this move might not be appropriate. But the fact is, in English, when writers, journalists, random people on the street, talk about "Taiwan" and "China", they are not choosing their terminology for politically motivated reasons, or because they support Taiwan independence.. they call the country "Taiwan" because that's the no-drama convention in English.
Maybe this convention doesn't translate to other languages, and hence people's opposition. If that's the case, then maybe those other language Wikipedia's should consider not just blindly following what the English Wikipedia does, and have their own discussions. Mlm42 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only good reason I can think of to blindly follow en.wiki is if due to en.wiki's wider audience that the decision looks sensible - especially for a topic thats relatively obscure. But I cannot see any reason at all why zh.wiki would follow en.wiki on a topic like this that's clearly so important to them. Frankly I don't see why any other wiki would blindly follow us on this - China is one of the world's most important countries and therefore any other wiki should have their own view on it.
I certainly feel strongly enough about not blindly following that I'm happy to support a message for the top of this talk page (and the China talk page ideally in both wikis) which explains, in English and Chinese, why we have gone down different paths on this topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break - 24 February

I just thought it might be a good idea to refocus the issue of the SPAs. Brianju is the latest one. Ignoring the struck sockpuppets, I count 7 SPAs compared to 10 other editors that have registered their opposition. If this trend continues there will be more SPAs than regular English Wikipedians who are objecting - and I'm being generous in my definition of "regular", given TheAznSensation actually edits very rarely. John Smith's (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that discussions ebb and flow a bit, but the first 14 points all being in favour (you could almost close it as a WP:SNOW close in favour at that point) followed by so many opposes more recently is really rather odd and there is fairly clearly some form of deliberate disruption to the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and reported a bunch of possible socks of Instantnood. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I waited to mention this in case Benlisquare, who has been active over on zhwiki, would address this first. The current move request was advertised on the Chinese Wikipedia's Village Pump equivalent here (revision) by an IP editor. This may explain the influx of Chinese editors with little to no experience in English policies and guidelines. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which case they should all be ignored. this makes it clear that there is a deliberate attempt to interfere in our processes going on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shame, but it looks like I was about the canvassing. Even if the IP didn't say "OMG stop the Taiwanese independence-seekers" going on to the Chinese language Wikipedia was obviously going to be the best place to whip up opposition to the move. John Smith's (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I point out that the notification on the zh.wp village pump had a very neutral wording? WP:Canvassing explicitly states that a notification must be mass, biased, partisan or secret to constitute canvassing, and I hope we aren't so blinded by our own snobbishness that we think any attempt to attract editor participation from other Wikimedia projects is necessarily partisan. Deryck C. 23:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet strangely enough they all seem to be falling on one side of the argument... John Smith's (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How are other language wikipedias appropriate places to seek opinons on move requests on the English wikipedia? CMD (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to be neutrally worded, I make no assertions of misdeed there. However, the current voting trend makes for some interesting observations: EnWP editors, including both experts and newbies in the topic area, have voted heavily in favour of the move. ZhWP editors, presumably also including both experts and newbies in the topic area, have heavily voted against the move. If the arguments were being based solely on policy and facts, there's no reason why ZH editors would near-unanimously vote the opposite of EN editors, assuming both have reasonable distribution of experts. This points a very strong finger at political motivations - there's a strong appearance, justified or not, that many of the ZhWP editors we've attracted to this move discussion have political motivations for their votes. This also makes for potential evidence suggesting a 'partisan' effect from the otherwise neutral notification. Since political reasons have never been a valid argument for EnWP (and probably others), the closing admin will need to come to their own conclusion about these votes and whether they have any policy-based arguments alongside their political arguments. Most of them so far don't seem to, but time will tell. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This from the editor who accused me of "incivility" and using "accusatory language" when I dared to note that the fact many supporters of this move appeared be migrants from other articles (like the now renamed Wikipedia:NC-TW and People's_Republic_of_China) constituted part of the evidence suggesting that this was the next battle in an ongoing activist campaign. Despite my view I have never tried to block supporters from expressing themselves. Perhaps those who primarily contribute to zh.wikipedia have lived in the PRC and/or ROC like I have and are more familiar with Greater China issues.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accused you of being incivil and using accusatory language because you were being incivil and using accusatory language, Brian. If you want to see conspiracy theories that aren't there, that's your prerogative. People who live or have lived in China or Taiwan - yourself included - are no more or less qualified to comment on the verifiable facts of a case than anyone else is. Nationality neither confers nor removes automatic authority on any given subject. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After I made these remarks you objected to "this incivility" saying I was making "unfounded accusations." Which words, exactly, constituted "incivility"? I think it's time to start backing up your charges with specifics and, better yet, present the evidence to the Admin Noticeboard because it is off-topic here. You elsewhere lectured me about making "inappropriate assumptions about the motivations..." If your own accusations are "founded" where is the proof of the "political motivations" that you accuse our Chinese Wikipedia editors of? If "nationality neither confers nor removes automatic authority" then why have you been trying to suppress the input of Wikipedians based on apparent origin? You've previously supported efforts to block Hong Kong-based editors and now you've broadened your attack to editors of zh.wikipedia in general.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the pace and disorganisation of the supporting discussion for this page, it's little surprise that some comments go under the radar. Here's one from Cobrachen, who says "I would suggest leave this alone since this, to lots of people from the other side of pacific and you don't know, is very political driven and could become even more flamming than you have seen". I don't have time to go over others but Cobrachen's comment is an indication both that his own commentary here is politically driven, and a tacit acknowledgement that "lots of people from the other side of the pacific" are likely to have similarly politically motivated views (though I'm on the same side of the Pacific and much closer to these matters than Cobrachen seems to think). If I've made inappropriate assumptions about the motivations of our Chinese editors, it's been on the admission of a respected contributor to the Chinese Wikipedia who appears to have more experience in the subject than either of us. Your characterisation of having concerns about political reasoning influencing votes, against our policy, as 'attacks' is as absurd as it was last time you flung that accusation around. My interests are in the integrity of the vote, not which way it goes. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: "Currently at the English Wikipedia there is a vote regarding moving en:Republic of China to en:Taiwan. Initial discussion (regarding the issue) suggests that a final vote should be conducted, if anyone is interested in proving their opinion, have a look at en:Talk:Republic of China." - Does this violate WP:CANVASS? I don't see how a particular side is being taken. Per the page on WP:CANVASS, there is no immediate rule violation, unless I have missed something, in which case someone please elaborate. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CANVASS:

  • Scale:
    • Appropriate: Limited posting? Yes (only one page)
    • Inappropriate: Mass posting? No
  • Message:
    • Appropriate: Neutral? Yes (non-partisan language used)
    • Inappropriate: Biased? No
  • Audience:
    • Appropriate: Nonpartisan? Yes (the entire ZH Wiki community, on a community discussion page. THe ZH Wiki is comprised of mainlanders, HKers, Taiwanese, Singaporean, and Overseas Chinese)
    • Inappropriate: Partisan? No (inb4 "everyone on ZH Wiki is biased against us because they are Chinese, etc etc")
  • Transparency:
    • Appropriate: Open? Yes (On a community discussion page where anyone of any political alignment can view)
    • Inappropriate: Secret? Unsure (I'm not the kind of person with omnipotent vision that can read private messages on Facebook)

Well? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A link would have sufficed, Ben. I explained my reasoning why it could be seen as risky under the 'audience' criteria in my post above. The fact that most ZhWP editors who jumped over to this article have expressed neither policy-based reasons for their objection (in some cases no reasons at all), or have bypassed policy reasoning to push political reasoning is concerning, and closing administrators will need to assess this factor in their decision. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVASS is written for recruiting current active English Wikipedia editors. What has happened here is better described as a case of meat puppetry. Mlm42 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ZH is a biased audience. Never mind the political slant and lack of realistic population representation - culturally it is biased as the language itself. The community at ZH uses endonyms specific to the Sinosphere because ZH doesn't have the global reach that EN (or even DE) does. Even more importantly, Chinese uses words that, when translated directly, do not have the same usage as their English translations. To a great extent, meaningful to this debate, the Chinese characters for "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" do not have the same meaning and usage as they do in English. These terms in Chinese are usually more rigid and absolute, which is a contrast to the fluidity of English. That is a cultural speed bump and someone whose primary language is Chinese, even if they speak excellent English, is still going to carry those cultural biases. That isn't to say that ZH editors aren't welcome to post their opinion here, but they should find it because they are active on EN.
The appropriate template for many of these users is {{canvassed}}|username as an alternative, or in addition to, SPA. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
We're supposed to believe that "China" overwhelmingly refers to the PRC yet the "Chinese" community is biased against the PRC? Maybe the "Chinese" label shouldn't be reserved for the PRC after all given this diversity! I've edited zh.wikipedia from the mainland so I know that it's possible for PRC residents to be Wikipedians. I'm interested in knowing how you can be so confident that an entire Wikipedia project is biased if you hail from an English speaking country as opposed to the culture you're weighing in on. You have ties to the PRC? How is someone with ties to the PRC less biased on this issue than someone from the ROC? If this discrimination based on national origin is going to continue then everyone should disclose his or her origins instead of hiding behind anonymous usernames. The fact of the matter is that the ROC does not have anything even close to the level of organization and sophistication of the PRC when it comes to slanting information. I see supporters of this retitling expressing concern about anonymous HK and Taiwan editors while remaining oblivious to the possibility of anonymous 五毛党 editors. If the English Wikipedia is the unbiased community and an unbiased POV calls for a retitling then why didn't this happen years ago? The editing community, and this article, have been around for a long time.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. In English, not Mandarin. Also China isn't called "China" in Chinese - its called "the Middle Kingdom". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And America is called "Beautiful Kingdom", along with Britain "Heroic Kingdom" and France "Kingdom of Law". Most country names in Chinese are quite flattering, with the exception of the Philippines (菲律賓), which literally translates to "unruly guest". Your point? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that because the name is completely different they don't necessarily refer to exactly the same thing. If for example Scotland becomes independent from England and Wales the English language use of the terms Britain, Great Britain, England and United Kingdom will change. "Heroic Kingdom" might well change differently and might refer to England alone, or England and Wales, or the island of Great Britain. Its like the Inuit having 25 words for snow whereas English only has one - languages and cultures are different - especially two as different as British/American and Chinese cultures. You can see how different the languages are with Chinglish and putting Chinese text through Google translate or something in reverse.
The concept known as the Middle Kingdom in Mandarin is not necessarily the same as "China" is in English. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a slight tangent, the Scotland point may offer an interesting comparison here - Scotland is the name of the place, whether it is part of the UK or independent. Using "Scotland" to refer to it does not imply an opinion one way or other as to independence. Although the background and wider issues differ, that's the way Taiwan is primarily used in the English language. This is pretty uncontroversial, even if it seems odd to some here, especially to those coming from Chinese WP. "Taiwan" is, in fact, pretty neutral as well as common - or at least no less neutral than ROC - and none of those asserting it has some deep POV import have offered any evidence for that beyond their own assertions. Where is the authoritative third-party analysis that makes that specific claim? Can it really be the case, when English-language Xinhua reports of Hu Jintao's comments - specifically on the topic of independence as well - use "Taiwan" pretty happily? N-HH talk/edits 17:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlm42: Do a CTRL+F for "English", and no part of WP:CANVASS mentions the English Wikipedia except for a header template, which is supposed to mean that the guideline only applies to the EN Wiki (you know, as opposed to the Hindi Wikipedia; all projects have varying policies). I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.
@STC: "These terms in Chinese are usually more rigid and absolute, which is a contrast to the fluidity of English. That is a cultural speed bump and someone whose primary language is Chinese, even if they speak excellent English, is still going to carry those cultural biases." - What the blueberry muffins am I reading? I'd like you to go to Tianya.cn or Mop.com and repeat those lines; better yet, go there and say that "The Republic of China still exists". Report back results. If you don't get trolled to death by Wumaos, you're probably getting your account permabanned by the sysops for being a "capitalist-roader imperialist-dog symphathiser" or something. In case you weren't aware, Schmucky, the Chinese Wikipedia prides itself on what it interprets as NPOV, definition being that it is independent from the thought processes of both the PRC and ROC, and tries as much as possible to find a middle way. There are policy pages specifically warning users not to write in a style that sides with either the PRC or ROC, and to avoid Sinocentric phrases such as 我国 and 本港. ZH Wiki is magnitudes of differences away from your average PRC web community from Tianya, or your ROC community from zh:Komica. If you want a sample of what a PRC-sided community is like, have a look at the political boards on Baidu Tieba, and if you want to read Sinocentric vocabulary read the articles on Baidu Baike. Generalising "the mindset of the Chinese" is extremely absurd. Until you can find me a psychology journal that confirms all the things you claim, I'm assuming that you're pulling all this out of thin air. Associating the Chinese Wikipedia with empty claims about biases and Chinese lexicon" is pretty much that, empty. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to: "the Chinese Wikipedia prides itself on what it interprets as NPOV, definition being that it is independent from the thought processes of both the PRC and ROC, and tries as much as possible to find a middle way." - so they have a totally different understanding of neutrality than we do, where ours is down to how our sources view a given situation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can read Chinese, take a look at zh:WP:NPOV for yourself. I've only covered one part of ZH's NPOV, not all of it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Saturday Night Live's skit on 02/18/12 about Jeremy Lin pretty much encapsulates/parodies the gist of this discussion pretty well. A lot of the people who want to change this article to "Taiwan" don't realize the bias their position holds is actually politically and culturally insensitive; they don't see what they want to do is wrong. I think there's very little those who sees all sides of the situation (absent of politics, bias, prejudice) can do to change their minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously arguing that every single English language source which uses those terms, including the Taiwanese and Chinese press as well as the elite of the English language press like the Economist and the New York Times are being "culturally insensitive"?
With regards to audience. Do the people from Mainland China outweigh everyone else by 10:1? If not the audience is bias against them as a group.
I really find it difficult to understand why anyone is defending this action. We don't have move requests mentioned here which refer to other European language wikis, and neither have I ever seen anyone do the reverse. The different language wiki's operate essentially independently and this is basically an "internal matter" which should only affect en.wiki. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally this should be the case, but in reality whatever happens on EN Wiki is never an internal matter. EN Wiki is the largest of the Wikimedia Foundation projects, and whatever happens here has impacts on other projects, since many look up to EN Wiki as a model for their own Wikipedia projects. An analogy would be how "internal matters" affecting the Eurozone economy also has effects around the world; with a model like this, nothing can really be kept separate from one another. This is why I'm opposed to the alienation of cross-wiki users, and the branding of such users as inappropriately canvassed (which essentially nullifies their voice), or even worse, as meatpuppets, which potentially can get these cross-wiki users blocked simply for sticking up for their own ideas, given the policies behind meat/sockpuppets.
And within this move discussion, neither side is disadvantaged; of the ZH Wiki regulars, Makecat is from the PRC (according to his/her ZH Wiki userpage), and Cobrachen is from the ROC. The ZH Wiki has its significant share of PRC users that is good enough; asking for a 1.3 billion : 23 million ratio is a bit overboard, since there's bound to be a lack of interest. (Apparently only 126 million have broadband internet access anyway.) As of 2012, there are no significant technical boundaries for PRC residents to edit Wikipedia; Wikipedia is pretty much open in most parts of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong Province (combined almost six times the population of Taiwan + Hong Kong + Singapore), and in other areas, gaining editing access is as simple as emailing a Wikipedia sysop for a IP-block-exempt (for VPNs). If there is any limitation in the number of editors, it's because there is lesser interest in Wikipedia within the PRC, since the spotlight seems to be on Baidu Baike and Hudong. Nevertheless, the population of PRC users on ZH Wiki is not as small as some tend to think. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're still dancing around the issue, despite the fact I've explained it several times. No one here is saying that those who speak other languages or contribute to other projects shouldn't be allowed to contribute. It's to do with selective notification. It doesn't matter where Makecat is from or what Wikipedias he edits. He is an active editor at the English Wikipedia. Not one, repeat not one, of the SPAs/meatpuppets/editors-that-very-rarely-edits-English Wikipedia-but-is-active-on-the-Chinese-Wikipedia has supported this move. That is itself a damning fact. You can't just sweep it under the carpet. John Smith's (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And there we go. Makecat admits that he arrived here after seeing a notice posted on the Chinese Wikipedia noticeboard regarding the ROC to Taiwan move discussion. End of story. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know how he found out about this request. But I don't think that changes much. First, he still could have found out about this move request when the pump was notified, given he is active on here. Second (and more importantly), Makecat is just one user. All the other editors who came from the Chinese project have opposed the move as far as I can see. I can understand if there's not an even split on the issue, but such disproportionate weighting on one side of the argument is a joke. John Smith's (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's revealing that instead of considering the fact that there is a strong consensus amongst Chinese language editors against retitling this article a cause for pause, you deem the presence of this consensus a "joke." The chauvinism being exhibited here is head shaking. Spend some time with the Chinese community and you might discover that a good many of them know what they are talking about and difficulty in expressing their arguments is more correctly attributed to their facility in English than their powers of analysis.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, what are you going on about? I didn't pass comments on the quality of their English. Why are you bringing that up?
But anyway I really have to thank you, as you've helped prove my point, although Benlisquare missed it (or chose to ignore it). I don't doubt that a large majority of users of the Chinese Wikipedia would be against renaming this article. Which is almost certainly why the IP editor alerted users on the Chinese Wikipedia. He was trying to find a sympathetic audience to sink this move request. As someone else pointed out, that's Meatpuppetry and against Wikipedia rules. John Smith's (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, given your apparent interest in fallacies, you should probably review argumentum ad verecundiam and association fallacy. Your argument is falsely based on the premise that merely living in China for a period of time is enough to awaken poor ignorant English contributors to 'the light'. You've been told repeatedly this is a false premise. You don't know how long any of the contributors here has spent in China except for yourself, neither does spending time in China make anyone an expert on anything, and to the best of your knowledge people with vastly more experience in the Chinese topic area may be opposing you, yet you insist on continuing to set up the faulty argument that anyone who has been there (naturally including yourself, building beneath you the illusion of a base of authority on the subject) clearly knows better. This is a clear non sequitur, and this too has been pointed out to you before. There are countless reasons why an identifiable cultural group may have strongly differing views on a subject than other groups, and 'because they know better' is the least of those reasons. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I call for my view to be upweighted over someone else's by deleting that other person's view, adding an asterisk to it, or otherwise trying to encourage a closing admin to downweight it? What I'm challenging is your calls for the views of a certain group of editors to be downweighted and it's in that context that I've suggested that it's possible that past or current residents of Greater China may in fact be even more informed than those whose right to contribute to this move proposal nobody is challenging. A black person who responds to the claims of white supremacists by pointing out black accomplishments is not necessarily a black supremacist. See False dilemma. I'm objecting to the "They're biased because they are ethnic Chinese," argument, not advancing a positive thesis of my own.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I had advanced a position that ethnic Chinese are biased and their votes should be downweighted you might have a point. I haven't. I have said that the particular ZhWP contributors we've attracted to this vote have given politically-motivated responses devoid of basis in EnWP policy, and that this is a concerning trend that closing admins will need to assess before rendering their final decision. As I stated elsewhere, my main interest is in the integrity of the process and its adherence to our long-established policies, not which side wins this debate. To answer your question on when you called for the views of yourself or other Chinese contributors to be weighted more heavily than any other editor, it is contained in commentary from you such as "if long time contributors to the Chinese Wikipedia think that just applying WP:COMMONNAME would constitute an oversimplication of the complexities and subtleties involved, this ought to be cause for pause for editors based on the other side of the world" [12], "perhaps those who primarily contribute to zh.wikipedia have lived in the PRC and/or ROC like I have and are more familiar with Greater China issues" [13], "[...] instead of considering the fact that there is a strong consensus amongst Chinese language editors against retitling this article a cause for pause [...]" [14], etc. You specifically name editors who are Chinese or who have spent time in China, you specifically named yourself, and via false premise you have attempted to imply that this group of editors is in some way better qualified to comment on matters of China than people you regard as not being part of this group. Tell me, Brian, if Chinese editors are no more knowledgeable about this topic area than other editors, and if you are not pushing for their opinions on the matter to be held in higher regard than those of others, why should their views in particular 'give us pause'? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that we know anything about how informed the editors who primarily contribute to Chinese Wikipedia are on this "ROC" vs "Taiwan" issue relative to editors who primarily contribute to English Wikipedia, yes, it seems to me that absent any further information those editors who reside in the region at issue could very well be more informed. As typical of an argument from ignorance like yours, the absence of information doesn't prove anything directly, it rather raises doubt about whatever is being positively claimed. In other words, what you suggest is indicative of editors to beware (hailing from zh.wikipedia) could just as plausibly be used to argue the opposite, as I've repeatedly suggested. Again, defending a group of editors against those who want to downweight their input is NOT equivalent to calling for their upweighting. You are equating your contention that these editors are "politically-motivated" with my own allegations of political activism (which you declared "incivil" when coming from me) when there is a critical difference between attempting to persuade participants (in my case) and trying to remove participants (in your case). If manipulation of the Talk page input of a whole group of editors based on speculation about the "political motivations" of that group, speculation informed only by the geographical origin of the editors, is acceptable surely you could direct us to where it has happened before.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, are you familiar with the straw man fallacy? You've been using it extensively, constructing fantasies of arguments made that don't exist because you don't have any basis to attack the arguments that do exist. I don't know how I can make it any clearer for you: most of the ZhWP editors that we have attracted thus far have not provided any policy-based reasons for their votes. These editors will need to have their votes assessed by the closing administrator. I grant that I have an excellent grasp of English and that things may seem obvious to me that aren't as obvious to others, but I'm fairly sure in what I've said there is nothing along the lines of 'all ZhWP editors should be downweighted', or that editors should 'beware' of anything. Perhaps if you spent less time confecting a false sense of 'us vs them' in this discussion you might notice that people on the 'them' side of your divide aren't necessarily as hostile and illogical as you seem to think (though you're doing a good job of making people hostile to you, specifically, with this poor form).
Let's be clear here: you've been trying to pump up editors who live or have lived in China, directly suggesting that their opinions should 'give pause' to all the other editors and effectively stating that you feel they should have more weight than those of others. You were called on it, rightly so, because it's a plainly false premise - experts on China and Taiwan hail from all countries around the world and some have never set foot in China, or haven't done so in decades. You now claim that you're simply 'bringing them back up to equal from being looked down on', which is at face value a falsehood attempting to cover up for the fact that you clearly indicated previously that they should be given more weight than the rest of us solely on the basis of their country of origin. The simple fact remains, if our Chinese contributors' views are founded in EnWP policy, they will be treated equally to any other contributor whose views are also founded in EnWP policy. You may be confusing me with other editors here, presumably through your 'us vs them' mentality, in thinking I have called for the ZhWP editors to be disregarded solely on that basis. I have not, I have told you already that I have not, and yet you persist in presenting this straw man. Go and read again what I've told you twice about where my interests lie here, Brian, and do please at least try to understand them.
Your commentary here has been unnecessarily combative, deliberately confrontational and you've been particularly unpleasant to interact with. And it's not 'any opposer', it's mainly just you. I spoke with Deryck Chan about his vote, presented him with evidence I felt he hadn't seen and while I disagree with his interpretation of that evidence, the discussion was undertaken politely and respectfully. He didn't accuse anyone of being an 'activist', nor bring out a largely-misapplied shortlist of fallacies. He was pleasant to speak with and despite the fact we disagree, I would have no problem discussing matters with him again in future. Even Cobrachen had a respectful discussion with me on this talk page, and again I disagree but respect him and his position. These people have no difficulty communicating with others in reasonable fashion, Brian. I can't say the same for you, and so I won't be engaging in any more of this pointless back-and-forth with you. It serves no benefit whatsoever to either the supporting or opposing arguments, it has nothing to do with the move request itself and is only tangentially related to policies. Both of our efforts would be better spent anywhere other than this conversation we're having right now. I have no intention of wasting any more time on it, and I'd encourage you to do the same. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with TechnoSymbiosis here. Brian's posts have not been helpful for either side of this debate. In the interest of not lowering the quality of the discussion any further, I agree this thread should end. Mlm42 (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There would not be an issue here if it were conceded that while not providing "any policy-based reasons for their votes" may be relevant, whether an editor primarily contributes to zh.wikipedia or hails from Hong Kong is irrelevant and that (accordingly) no special instructions to closing admins are in order on those points. Individual problem editors can and should be dealt with on a specific case-by-case basis.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, the issue with zh.wiki is that people !voting who hail from there and who haven't edited here much or at all are applying the zh.wiki policies to en.wiki which isn't acceptable. With regards to Hong Kong, actually we've been really patient about it and have spent a lot of time explaining the situation, but there has been continued disruption and multi-voting from there and there isn't much we can do beyond removing those comments.
I would much rather that zh.wiki hadn't been inappropriately canvassed and that Hong Kong editors weren't so disruptive, but unfortunately that isn't the case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the "down weighting" is being called for is because the editors from zh.wiki were inappropriately canvassed to deliberately attempt to change the outcome of the move request. That is transparently obvious. That its inappropriate is clear from the comments about the differences of the NPOV policies, and the fact that the zh.wiki people have !voted in exactly the opposite fashion to most of the en.wiki people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any why not alert every other language wikipedia? Yes, it is about a China-related issue, but given that the point to be determined relates to a) simply the name in the English language and b) the specific rules of en.wiki, German-language wikipedia editors, for example, are surely just as suitable a group to have their say? If anything they'd come here with less baggage and with a better grasp of English language issues and use. Apologies if this sounds facetious or even chauvinistic (it's not meant to of course), but it's a serious point. And, given that most of the "opposes" that seem to have come from the Chinese project also offer no reason for that "vote", or offer unsupported claims about "neutrality" or "Taiwan's an island, not a state"-type comments, it seems many of them indeed are not capable of addressing the issues; even if they might be able to lecture us all on the finer points of Taiwanese politics or cross-strait history. Also, the idea that you can't SPA-tag until you've checked that IP/account's contribution to every other wiki project sets quite a high bar, surely. N-HH talk/edits 16:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that other projects should be notified, then feel free to do so (though I don't really think that's a good idea). As for checking contribs, you can check a user's global SUL contributions using this tool (example link lists my global contribs). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Benlisquare, I'm not sure you are completely understanding that here at English Wikipedia, it is completely unacceptable to recruit users who have never (or hardly ever) edited here to vote on something. Please read WP:MEAT (an official policy); this seems like a clear-cut case of meat puppetry, and I'm surprised you are still defending it. Mlm42 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other difference is our neutrality polices - following the explanation here it seems that if I was active on the Chinese Wikipedia I would be arguing the opposite position from the one I have stated here. These differences in culture are fine, but those differences may well lead to different outcomes.

Ben, if you feel that en.wiki has undue influence lets stick a note at the top of the talk page here (and on chinese Wikipedia) in English and Mandarin explaining the difference in approach. That should make anyone else who wants to blindly copy us at least think about it and whether their view on neutrality fits more with the English language or Chinese language decisions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlm42: So if it's unacceptable for these people to be !voting here, what happens to them then? Are they going to be indef-blocked, as per policy, simply for being here? Good-faith editors with 9,000+ edits on ZH Wiki included? What's the due process you have in mind? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 18:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that they will only be blocked if they are deemed disruptive; a single vote isn't really disruptive. As long as the closing admin is aware of what has happened (i.e. has read this thread) then no further action seems necessary. Mlm42 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far the discussion has been about editors "from the Chinese Wikipedia" voting one-sided against the move. True, the statistics say so. However, I think the "evidence" we've stumbled upon is a case of omitted variable bias. The omitted variable is fluency with the Chinese language and culture. For example, Benlisquare and I, both fluent speakers of Chinese and English, and both more active on en.wp than zh.wp, sided with "oppose". The fact that people who don't speak Chinese won't come from zh.wp made it very convenient to draw up statistics which say being on zh.wp makes one biased in this debate. It's not: people who are fluent in Chinese are more likely to be aware of the subtle differences between "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" when they're used, both in Chinese and in English. Reading the words without its historical context in place, it is easy to come to the conclusion that "ROC and Taiwan are used interchangeably"; but one who understands the historical connotations of the two terms will realise the subtleties involved and therefore are more likely to argue that the two should be differentiated. Just my two cents on statistics and history. Deryck C. 13:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what does fluency in, or even knowledge of, Chinese have to do with the question at hand? Where is your third-party evidence as to the claims you make about the use of Taiwan vs ROC in English, beyond simple assertion? And, yes, you can make a case about a technical or conceptual difference, but when people - including every serious, reputable reference source - refer to the country in 2012, they say Taiwan. Why is this article - which purports to be about that country - not called Taiwan, as every other English-language source calls it? This is the problem here - people are simply missing the point in favour of esoteric analysis and debate. N-HH talk/edits 13:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fluency in Chinese means that one is in a better position to analyse relevant original sources. A relevant discussion between User:TechnoSymbiosis and myself can be found on our respective talk pages. (1 2) Essentially, the ROC is more than just Taiwan, and each quotation falls into place when one has that background in mind. Deryck C. 14:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just injecting here that while I stopped discussing the matter with you, it wasn't that I was convinced of your position. I maintain that your interpretation of the English usage of 'Taiwan' and 'Republic of China' is incorrectly affected by the usage of their respective Chinese terms in the Chinese language. As was pointed out previously, the Chinese term for Britain is 英國, which translates as 'flower country'. This plainly differs from the English term 'United Kingdom', but it would be foolish to try to 'correct' the Chinese usage of the term based on the English usage. The two are disconnected and unrelated. Similarly, you don't use Chinese usage of 中华民国 and 台湾 to 'correct' English usage of 'Republic of China' and 'Taiwan'. Chinese usage is irrelevant to the matter at hand here and English usage needs to be better respected. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What "original sources" could possibly be relevant to this discussion if they're in Chinese? This is not a historical or academic discussion. We are focusing on the modern state of Taiwan, not the KMT's pre-1949 existence in China. We keep coming back to the same point, which is that in English the country is referred to as Taiwan. It would not be confusing in the slightest to ensure that the article is titled accordingly. It might be distressing to some Chinese nationalists or die-hard KMT supporters, but it was also distressing for Turkish nationalists to see the Armenian Genocide so titled. Wikipedia didn't change the article title to suit them. We focus on what is best understood by English-speaking users. If Chinese speakers don't like it, they can use the Chinese Wikipedia. John Smith's (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in ENGLISH, the official name of the Republic of China IS THE Republic of China, not Taiwan. Taiwan does not refer to any state. The ROC calls ITSELF the ROC. Your injecting of the armenian genocide and making ad hominem attacks (accusing people of being chinese nationalists) is bannable behavior. The armenian GENOCIDE is titled as "genocide", since most historians agree that a genocide occured. No historian is denying that the official name of the country which Taiwan is controlled by is the ROC.Niyaendi (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here at en.wiki we use WP:Common names, not WP:Official names. CMD (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is multi-folds. First, should there be separate articles for the different concepts? Second, is any one of the concepts the primary topic for that same word (in this case, "Taiwan")? Third, what would be the best titles for each of these concepts? The obvious answer to the first question is yes. For the second question, I don't think there is any. The different concepts are as primary as each other. For the third one, I incline to agree with ROC, since it encompasses the pre-1945 or pre-1949 background of this country, and it also covers the non-Taiwan part of this country as of 2012. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, since what you basically said was "Wikipedia should name articles according to common usage by English speakers, regardless of whether they know what they're talking about." I don't see any point for me to continue casting pearls before swine. WP:NPA disclaimer: "swine" refers to our apparent policy-interpreting process as a whole, not specific editors. Deryck C. 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The more significant personal attack there was your paraphrase about people not knowing "what they're talking about", which could be seen as a dig at other editors. Which leads to three observations - 1) I for one know plenty about the background issues here. It's pretty clear most supporting the move do as well, so it's both a cheap and an inaccurate shot. 2) It's not even an accurate description of WP policy, which asks us to look at authoritative and reliable sources, not simply rely on possibly inaccurate casual use. The overwhelming majority of those use "Taiwan", as demonstrated. 3) In any event, it would be entirely correct to say that it doesn't matter if people don't know or understand the background in detail. The thing anyone participating here does need to know about - and indeed focus on - is, as noted, what the name of this thing is in English-language sources. Chinese-language sources are utterly irrelevant to the specific question being posed here, and if you don't understand that, or WP policy on sourcing and evidence, then it's entirely clear who here doesn't "know what they're talking about". N-HH talk/edits 15:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see why fluency in Mandarin is a requirement, or even relevant, to understand how China, or in this case Taiwan, is referred to in the English language.
If we were discussing how China is referred to in Chinese, or even how the UK is referred to in Chinese I fail to see how knowledge of the English language would be remotely relevant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck, yes, that's what I tried to point out: many of the oppose votes seem to be based on the following claim: In other languages this move is inappropriate. This claim may or may not be true, I don't know; different languages have different conventions regarding names. But the point is that it doesn't matter: we should only really be considering English-language sources. Mlm42 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Deryck. The same word "Taiwan" may means something interrelated but quite different under different situations. Speakers of any of the Chinese languages are more likely to be able to tell the differences when the same word appears under different situations. In many cases, it means the entire post-1949 (or perhaps 1955, after Tachen was lost) Free Area of the ROC, which is Taiwan plus Kinmen plus Matsu plus the South China Sea islands. In many other cases, it means Taiwan the main island, or Taiwan including the Pescadores, Green Island and Orchid Island. Most people here ignore such differences, because such differences are rarely relevant in English-language sources. The proposed draft User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan got all these concepts confused, as mentioned above (#Credibility of the proposal). 147.8.202.87 (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March

User:CCSX is another editor who dropped a vote, this one without explanation, yet isn't by any measure a regular English wikipedia editor. CMD (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decision-making process

Just wondering, how is the end result decided? First past the post, absolute majority, or what? The previous PRC to China move was not an absolute majority win, and whilst the admins said that they took all of the arguments into consideration, they weren't really clear regarding how that process actually worked. What I mean is, number results are quantitative data and arguments are qualitative data; analysis of qualitative data is based on interpretation, so given that they did not explain how they managed with the "data", I have no idea how they reasoned that move. I hope we don't get a similarly vague "we looked at everyone's arguments, and decided this. no further explanation" for this move proposal like the previous one. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:CONSENSUS explains the process pretty well. Mlm42 (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus yes, and also the strength of the arguments based on the particular policies concerned. I would say the closing triumvirate were perfectly clear: they can still be read here and are well worth reviewing as most of the closing reasons are relevant to this discussion while the ROC is mentioned a number of times.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geez people respond fast. I was about to say pretty much the same thing, that Wikipedia is not a poll, but moreover that is it based on what people say and what the general feel (consensus) from everyone is. Also, I was just discussing a little while ago how long this RM should last, because I understand the arguments about 7 days not being long enough and I agree and would say that this RM will be open past tomorrow (7 days), which is something I was hoping to bring to a discussion here, how long it should last, I personally would go for 21-28 days, because 7 days is not enough for this time of major topic, although I also wouldn't say its indefinite. JPECH95 03:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the examples within the proposal

Within the usage examples listed below the proposal, I just realised something quite problematic that should be changed. Currently a WP:GOOGLETEST for "Penghu, Taiwan" is being used as an argument that Taiwan is synonomous with the ROC. However, Penghu is itself a part of Taiwan Province, so not even I, an opposer to this move, would find anything wrong with writing "Penghu, Taiwan". After all, Penghu is a part of Taiwan. However, Kinmen and Matsu are not a part of Taiwan, the province that is. Kinmen and Matsu are both part of Fukien Province/Fujian Province of the Republic of China. Currently the "Penghu, Taiwan" clause proves nothing, and is potentially misleading. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're renaming the article. You can amend the text and other articles afterwards. John Smith's (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read what I wrote. Try again. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, that example is evidence that "Taiwan" often refers to more than just the island. Many people argue that "Taiwan" refers to only the island, and state that as a reason to oppose this move. Mlm42 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the analogous search using "Kinmen" instead of "Penghu" returns roughly the same results. Mlm42 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Location of Kinmen
Here are the precise numbers (Google books only):
Note the location of Kinmen, closer to the mainland than to the island of Taiwan. mgeo talk 21:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something I would like someone to clarify about the proposal,

Does the move imply that even after few weeks RoC attack PRC and get back few province or even all the claimed land, Taiwan would still be the common name of RoC? Or, does supporter to the proposal agree this point of view? C933103 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

這裡的支持者認為在英語中，"Taiwan"與"Republic of China"是同樣的東西，然後"Taiwan"是最常用的。他們不管在中文裡這兩個有什麼意思，也不管政治內容。反對者認為“台灣”不可能是“中華民國”，因為台灣島，台灣省和中華民國有不同的地理成分。 -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^ WTF? ^ HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Is there something wrong with my French? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That I got a laugh out of, nice. But uh, obviously, he was referring to the Chinese and this isn't the Chinese Wikipedia, rather the English Wikipedia, so, you could at least give a translation. JPECH95 02:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Benlisquare was explaining to C933103 that proponents consider 'Taiwan' and 'Republic of China' to refer to the same thing, but opponents insist that they're not the same thing. C933103's native language is Chinese so I presume Ben was intending to communicate more clearly than C933103 might be able to understand in English. It's a neutral (but very oversimplified) explanation of the main thrust of the two sides. Ben, if you feel Chinese is unavoidable, you should probably try to provide a translation along with what you write, as a courtesy. Part of our talk page guidelines is WP:SPEAKENGLISH. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Translation: Within this discussion, the supporters believe that within the English language, "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" are synonymous terms referring to the same thing, and that "Taiwan" is more commonly used. They do not find relevance about the usage of such terms in Chinese, nor political aspects. Opposers of this proposal believe that "Taiwan" cannot possibly equate with the "ROC", since Taiwan island, Taiwan Province and the ROC have geographically different constituencies. And yes, I do think that it's a bit over-simplified, but it's kinda the gist of things. I just wanted to clarify the whole thing in that user's native tongue, to make sure they understand most of everything. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I understand, but since most others, including myself, wouldn't (and I don't trust google translate when it comes to Chinese), so I figuerd that wouldn't be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpech95 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What happens to Earth if the Sun explodes tomorrow? We adjust to the situation at hand, but in the meantime positing "what if" to 1000 different hypotheticals is not a useful exercise. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Motion to close

And by that I don't mean now, but rather to get the general idea on when, because even though most moves last a week, this one should be open for much more than a week (also needless to say that the week was over yesturday). But I'd like to get a set date for when it will be closed and how the result will be met (most likely not democratically), because since the Taiwan (disamb) RM has closed with a no consensus it leaves me to wonder what will happen to this move (that I personally am very proud of). So if I was to say the RM would close on say, the 29th, would that be adequate time? Or rather, would the 31st (of March) be preferable? And again, also, how would we decide what the consensus is, should there be any. Thanks. JPECH95 04:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 16 March would be a good date. That is exactly four weeks after it was opened and falls on the same day as its opening. Seems like a fair length of time without being excessive - if people haven't commented in four weeks, they probably aren't going to. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think 21 days would be enough myself. John Smith's (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you judge consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS while excluding all the people who were canvassed inappropriately on zh.wiki and all the people who are probable socks of Instantnood. So basically only taking the view of established en.wiki users.
Its probably worth getting a triumvirate to close it as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, though, how do we decide who's credible and who's not? Isn't that judging in one respect, like obviously the sock puppets and those who were called from the Chinese Wikipedia to oppose, that's a different story, they shouldn't be counted, but otherwise everyone deserves their fair vote (of course, it's not by numbers, its by strength).
Agree with the triumvirate idea. It seems that the votes in terms of numbers are going to be not overwhelming either way, so the closer(s) are going to need to figure some sort of strength of argument basis (and sort though all this sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/SPA stuff). Regardless of which way it goes, it would be useful if the debate could be closed with sufficient authority that this talk page could, at least for 12 months, be about improving the article and not just what its title could be. Such things would be easier to achieve with a cluster of respected editors, rather than just one. LukeSurl t c 20:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I count it as 27 to 12 or so in favour of the move, which is pretty strong - especially given 40 people have legitimately commented and you are therefore going to have tighter boundaries in percentage terms.
Of course it is much better to judge it according to WP:CONSENSUS which means you take the strength of the arguments into account - and its pretty clear how our (rather than Chinese wiki's) neutrality and article titles policies fall with regards to this issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So would March 16 be a good day to call it closed and declare a consensus, or is that too much time? That should be more than enough time. JPECH95 02:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jpech95, I don't think this is a decision that is up to us.. we need an uninvolved admin (or better yet, three uninvolved admins) to declare consensus. And we can't ensure they do that on a certain date.. we have to find volunteer admins first, after all. Mlm42 (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we could, if we want to play it out as the Chinese move was, and TechnoSymbiosis might be more accurate, because I suppose we can't set a date, but I definitly would like to be assured I won't be visiting this talk page in July and this will still be here. That's basically my concern. JPECH95 22:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the intention of this question is how long we leave the discussion until we actively seek out admins to close it, rather than on which specific date it will be closed. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we want to drag this out too long really, I think pretty much all the people who have a been watching this debate have probably given their opinions already. I wouldn't want to be one of the closers though - there's going to be a mountain of pretty tedious text for them to wade through (it's not just the voting section, it's a few months or so of this talk page's archives). LukeSurl t c 11:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it would be good to have at least one member of the triumvirate being able to understand Chinese, as some of this dispute (see the SPA discussion on this page) spills over into the .zh Wiki. LukeSurl t c 12:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is English Wikipedia. When the primary (maybe even sole) argument for the move is the common name, in English, anything posted in Chinese is, by definition, not a response to that point, and therefore irrelevant to this Requested move. HiLo48 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, why don't you find the three closing admins now so they're in place when this discussion starts to draw to a close? I suggest you ask for volunteers. John Smith's (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it if the admins in question were forced to participate beyond their own free will, per volunteer bias. Just kidding. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad you're taking this issue seriously, Benlisquare. I guess that goes to show that you're less than optimistic you'll get the result you want when the move request is closed. John Smith's (talk) 08:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No fun allowed? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Benlisquare, I, for one, appreciate your occasional humour in this otherwise serious/heated/emotional discussion. :-) Mlm42 (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As another question (can never have too much, at least it keeps things moving along, right?) are we looking for 1-3 admins to decide upon this move? Because it has been nearly two weeks and like I said earlier, with some agreement, four weeks is more than enough time, and we're already halfway there. JPECH95 17:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three admins. I suggest you make enquiries now to find them. It might take a week or more to get them in place. John Smith's (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three, okay. And how am I to get ahold of them (sorry for being in unfamiliar territory)? JPECH95 19:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the administrators noticeboard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure JPECH95 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key themes in opposition to change

Inevitably the discussion above has sprawled quite a bit, and in the interests of clarity and focus – especially for any admins who have to review it all – I thought I’d try to pull the key themes together and offer people opposing the move the opportunity to clarify and back up their arguments. I don’t think it’s in dispute that Taiwan is the common name used in most sources for this country/state/whatever. The most frequently cited reasons for opposing any change in accordance with that seems to be based on neutrality concerns and scope/ambiguity. However, these claims are often simply asserted without supporting evidence. Perhaps people could take this opportunity to supply such evidence – meaning links to third party sources explicitly making these points by way of analysis, not rehashed arguments or one-off examples of use/non-use – in the spots below, if it exists.
I'd also make two more general points ahead of that. Even if it is established that use of Taiwan is in some way not neutral, in what way exactly does WP:NPOV conflict with WP:COMMONNAME? There's a false dichotomy here, surely, in that WP:POVTITLE and the Naming section of WP:NPOV are both quite explicit in allowing titles that might appear not to be neutral, or to endorse one side in a dispute, when they are the common title in English sources (and they use as examples things that are far more obviously “non-neutral” prima facie than Taiwan). As for the scope/ambiguity objection, this seems to miss that the proposal here is more than simply a ROC to Taiwan move – the main point being debated is, yes, about tying the straight Taiwan name to the modern state/country, per common usage; but it also includes secondary proposals for an article titled “Taiwan (island)” and possibly a broader article about the “Republic of China” as a concept/system of government. In addition, it misses the point that the current article itself equates ROC and Taiwan in the very first sentence and through claiming the country template – the only difference is that it does so under the title ROC. N-HH talk/edits 17:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

  • What evidence is there that “Taiwan” is not pretty neutral terminology; or at least just as neutral as “Republic of China”? Can people provide links to reputable analysis that suggests it is not neutral and that this is a broad perception, or authoritative style guides that caution against its use for this reason? For example, something like this observation on the use of “Ulster” in the context of Northern Ireland. Or to evidence that, say, Chinese English-language sources avoid using Taiwan because of its implications? N-HH talk/edits 17:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is the crux of the neutrality argument: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/13/content_382036.htm, http://www.gwytb.gov.cn/en/SpokespersonRemarks/201103/t20110316_1788120.htm Equating the Republic of China with Taiwan implies that Taiwan is a sovereign state separate from China, and is seen as a pro-independence argument. --Jiang (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likewise, China refuses to allow Taiwan to go by the name 'Republic of China' in international organisations and events such as the Olympics, requiring them to adopt the name 'Chinese Taipei' instead. Similarly, the different political parties within Taiwan itself are divided on usage with the KMT preferring 'Republic of China' and the DPP preferring 'Taiwan'. The evidence lends itself to the notion that neither name is particularly neutral and that there will always be some political groups that object to the name we use, regardless of what it is. This pushes the issue out of WP:NPOV and into WP:POVTITLE territory. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, some may argue that calling the sovereign state "Taiwan" implies that the ROC no longer exists, and that it died in 1949, when it clearly does exist in the modern era, only as a tiny speck of its former glory. Yes, ROC is biased in that implies that there are Two Chinas. Taiwan can be bad on both sides, either as a "subordinate renegade province" of the PRC, or as a de jure independent nation called Taiwan. By calling it Taiwan, it implies that the ROC does not exist and the PRC does (making the PRC the rightful successor of China per succession of states theory), at the expense of the national soveriegnty of the ROC. By calling it ROC, it implies that there are two existent Chinas, the ROC and PRC, at the expense of the PRC's rhetoric. The POV works either way. The Two Chinas model makes it look like instead of there being two independent states, that there is something like Occupied France and Vichy France or something (though that analogy probably isn't as good as I hoped). By using ROC, we're essentially "losing less" when it comes to shaking the balances of POV; "Taiwan" causes more damage than "ROC", from what I can see, unless someone would like to argue otherwise. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The de facto scenario is that there are Two Chinas, one being the PRC and the other the ROC; this won't change until the ROC ceases to exist via the de jure independence of Taiwan, de jure peaceful reunification of China, or the Second Chinese Civil War. (That, or the PRC ceases to exist, which is more unlikely.) The de jure scenario is that, per the 1992 Consensus, mainland China and Taiwan are both part of a One China, however the two governments of China (i.e. the PRC and ROC) are in disagreement as to what the definition of China is. This will not change until a replacement for the 1992 Consensus is formed, via a mutual agreement between the two sides or via aggressive political moves by one side (which may happen either if a DPP government is formed on the ROC, or if a less moderate, more militarist cabinet is elected in the National People's Congress in the PRC). At the same time, the de jure scenario recognised by the rest of the world (United Nations, et cetera) is that the PRC is the official successor of the ROC in 1949, and that after the ROC losing its UN seat to the PRC in the 1970s, it is no longer a valid sovereign state. (Though de facto, the Republic of China Armed Forces is still an existing entity the United States can sell Patriot missiles to, amongst other things.) Now, the point of this entire chunk of tl;dr: Both terms, ROC and Taiwan, are definitely POV, that's a given. The question is, which one is less of a pinprick? Do we abandon the rhetoric of the PRC they've been trying to build on for so many years, or do we abandon the sovereignty of the government of the ROC? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was rather hoping we could avoid lengthy analytical debate based on our own arguments, most of which we all understand and have all heard before to a lesser or greater degree of detail anyway. That's what I was trying to get away from and find third party reliable sources that simply and explicitly make the point that using Taiwan to describe this place is not neutral and deprecated as such by serious analysis, in order to back up such claims. For terms like Ulster (vs N.Ireland) and Judea and Samaria (vs West Bank), these are easy enough to find. The news pieces don't quite do that - they merely document a cross-strait spat about a declaration made by a former Taiwanese president; and, of course, quote a representative of the "Taiwan Affairs Office" doing the complaining, which seems to suggest usage of Taiwan per se is not a problem from the PRC (quite apart from the rest of the world). N-HH talk/edits 11:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Also, if that dispute is enough to bar having an article called Taiwan, that opens "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China" (which I can't see that it is, based solely on a) a Chinese official's complaint, b) about a far more emphatic statement than that); it's also enough to bar the current one, which is titled Republic of China and opens by saying "The Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan". They're saying the same thing of course, but just with differing focus. N-HH talk/edits 11:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with N-HH. So far there's individual opinion as to why Taiwan isn't neutral, but nothing from credible third party sources. Sure, some might say that calling the country "Taiwan" implies there is no ROC anymore. But some might say that calling it "ROC" implies that it is the rightful government of China. We can't have an article title pleasing everyone. John Smith's (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this is how we have to roll. Claiming that every name is POV based on personal opinion isn't really particularly helpful - for another example see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles where every possible name that has been suggested is claimed to be a violation of NPOV for one reason or another.
If a given term is truly POV then it should be possible to see that from some sort of reliable source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using the name Taiwan simply because it's the common name is about as neutral as one could be. Only people pushing a political POV (i.e. non-neutral) could possibly argue otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW would naming the article as Republic of China (Taiwan) as French Wikipedia does be more NPOV? Although it is very likely to be even less commonly called as such, it is more precise and NPOV, and seems that this way of naming the country appeared on many online service's registration form that require users to select their country of origin, which I think it is because this way of naming the country receive least dissatisfaction/complain, means it is the most acceptable way.C933103 (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it deliberately includes the name preferred by people supporting a particular political view of the place. The name Taiwan, being the obvious common name throughout the English speaking world is the one used by people with no idea of the local politics. It's therefore as NPOV as it can be. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope/ambiguity

  • This seems to be a twin-track objection about ROC not being the same thing as Taiwan – that “Taiwan” as often refers to just the island or province rather than the whole country/state; and that “ROC” means something more than just the modern country/state. Can people provide evidence in relation to this, for example from reliable third-party sources that suggest that Taiwan usually has a more limited and geographic usage; or that a slightly blurry pars pro toto usage, of the sort used here for Madagascar for example, and for Taiwan in other non-WP country profiles, is inappropriate for Taiwan? Or would even be outright incorrect, as the entry for Britain here makes clear it would be for England vs Britain/UK? N-HH talk/edits 17:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insisting on 100% precision and theoretical consistency in every aspect of the proposed change is as wrong as insisting on 100% consistency in the use of Taiwan. Language and classification is rarely that simple; plus, these are big picture issues, and the details of any changes, including any secondary proposals and article content, are open to debate of course - among those who broadly support the plan, let alone those who are more sceptical. Anyway, that wasn't really the point of this section, which was asking for evidence and sources that explain/justify opposition to the broad principle at stake - ie that the country article should be at "Taiwan" - on the basis of significant and material supposed ambiguity or confusing scope. Do you have any? N-HH talk/edits 23:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • Some have cited WP:RECENTISM and the fact that the official name is ROC. I can’t see that these carry much weight, but happy to have someone explain why. The former is an essay about content and due weight; the latter manifestly falls foul of common name policy. N-HH talk/edits 17:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important note to the closing triumvirate

The vote above began with one single section. It was later separated into four sections. Votes were moved around by other editors. Some of the references in their remarks, such as "per above", may be referring to remarks previously located right above but relocated elsewhere. Some votes may also be mis-relocated to the wrong sections.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21] 202.189.98.135 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The banner at the top of this talk page includes Talk:Republic of China/article guidelines, which includes the sentence "# Remember to adhere to the naming conventions listed here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof", but the referenced section does not appear to exist. Was this naming convention repealed? Can someone more knowledgeable fix the link? --Boson (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about the article name basically led to the conclusion that the existing guide was rubbish and no longer represented consensus (if it ever had), hence it was removed recently. Given that it suggested that "Taiwan" was only to be used in respect of specific references to the main island itself and pretty much never for the broader geopolitical entity, it was clearly a nonsense formulation, and one that would become even more absurd if the proposed move/switch above goes ahead. I guess we need a new one. Broadly, that should be the opposite of the old one - Taiwan should be the preferred term for the state as a whole, even often when used in direct contradistinction to (mainland) China; with references to Taiwan island and Republic of China only when more geographic specificity is required or more technical, political issues come up in a formal context respectively. N-HH talk/edits 11:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The "existing guide" was attacked because it insisted on WP:NPOV which in turn meant Wikipedia not supporting PRC claims to ROC territory (and vice versa). There was no consensus for its removal. The attackers are now calling for "Taiwan" over here because it is more suggestive of provincial status subordinate to Beijing.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How strange. One of the major objections to this move is that it supports "Taiwanese independence", which would be the opposite to suggesting it is subordinate to Beijing. This clearly demonstrates why we should ignore what political implications we think titles will have. CMD (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And @Brian Dell, I know perfectly well why I, at least, objected to those guidelines - as do you, because I explained it above, and on previous occasions. It was simply that they flew in the face of usage elsewhere - it had nothing to do with trying to subvert npov or taking sides in the real-world political dispute. Please don't try to suggest that I'm either wrong or lying, at least about my own motives. Nor, as it happens, do I detect such naked politics behind the actions and statements of others who opposed them. In fact, it's quite clear where the politics is actually coming into this broader debate from. N-HH talk/edits 13:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my contention that you mischaracterized NC-TW when you claimed that, under NC-TW, Taiwan was to be used "pretty much never..." Besides calling for the PRC to go under "C" and the ROC to go under "T" when "alphabetizing countries," the old NC-TW guideline said "Republic of China" should be used in "political contexts" involving descriptions of "the existing governments or regimes" particularly when "imprecise" terms would be problematic. This is a minority of contexts. "Taiwan bought such-and-such" or "So-and-so visited Taiwan" were not precluded by NC-TW. I grant that the possibility that the call for ROC usage was either too broad or was in practice being applied too broadly. But you declared the entirety of NC-TW "rubbish" when the primary focus of NC-TW is to warn POV pushers against advancing claims by either the ROC or the PRC to territory controlled by the other (note its placement in the "Political NPOV" section). If the point was not to attack this primary raison d'être of NC-TW a rewording or rephrasing could have been proposed instead of deletion.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're still making inappropriate assumptions about the motivations and intentions of people involved in the action. I think most participants would agree that the goal was to remove material that did not reflect consensus, and replace it with material that did. From what I can gather, you would have preferred the section remain in the guideline and be re-written inline, whereas other editors preferred the section be removed, a discussion held over how to fix it, then have it reinserted once it did reflect consensus. Your accusation that people wanted to open the door for POV pushers and to attack the section's purpose is completely unfounded given there's a discussion going right now on what would be a suitable replacement here, in which you can plainly see the people you accuse of wanting to effectively kill off the guideline are participating (and in some cases supporting the proposed new text). But you know this because you've participated in that discussion yourself, so why you continue to mis-characterise people's intentions is beyond me. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(@Brian Dell - EC) And you never said above that I "mischaracterised" the guideline, so I don't see how you can now "stand by" that contention; indeed, this is the first time you've made that accusation. What I was responding to was your equally unevidenced claims about people's motives - that they attacked it because they disliked its insistence on NPOV and that their aim was to encourage usage that implied Taiwan's subordination to Beijing. I objected to that because it is an untruth. As to the new, mischaracterisation point, I don't know if we're looking at different things. This is the one I was referring to. The rival claims and equal status points are simply the first paragraph of the guidelines. But there's then ten times as much text following, about other matters. Your quote, from the introductory points there, does indeed pretty much deprecate using Taiwan in the general way the rest of the world uses it in 2012, ie for the state. The convention also does that explicitly in the next sentence - "the side-by-side usage of the terms "China" and "Taiwan" in a political context (phrases such as "China warns Taiwan") should generally be avoided". Then, in the columns, it is very clear that "ROC" is to be used for the state and that "Taiwan" should only be used to refer to geography and the main island itself. That's the thread that runs through the old guidelines, and, yes, I and others have a problem with it. I see neither mischaracterisation of the guidelines nor base motives on the part of those opposed to them here. And, btw, I agree that any new guidelines should almost certainly have an NPOV guarantee of some sort. N-HH talk/edits 22:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are entitled to allege where the "politics is actually coming" from I'm equally entitled, no? I responded to your statement that I not "suggest" that you're "wrong" by explaining in more detail why your "rubbish"ing of NC-TW remained "wrong" in my view. You repeat your contention that under NC-TW it was "very clear" that "'Taiwan' should only be used to refer to geography..." but it was, in fact, far from clear that usage was so restricted. There was indeed a "thread" running through the "old guidelines", but the theme was more oriented towards protecting Republic of China-related articles from POV editing in a background where the PRC does not recognize its existence, than trying to indiscriminately stamp out the use of "Taiwan." This theme is now absent from proposed replacements I've seen.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, but I only said that in response to your original accusation about politics. So, no, you're not "equally entitled". For want of a better phrase, you started it. As for the guideline content itself, you and I must be reading different things. Under the columns for ROC, ROC(T), Taiwan etc, ROC comes first. That column says to use ROC "When referring to the state in article space", among other occasions. It then offers occasions when it calls for ROC(T), again focusing on references to the state. Then, thirdly, it offers the time when you should use Taiwan - in only three cases, without mentioning "state" once. Namely for "a geographic location on the island", "an origin in the context of a geographical location" or "a subect specific to the island of Taiwan". Could that be more clear and more "wrong", when compared to real-world common use? N-HH talk/edits 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel you are entitled to the last word on the matter, fine, you can have it. To focus on the issue, I don't agree that the "only" you find in the text actually exists. What was restricted by an "only" was the use of "Taiwan province," not "Taiwan." If someone means to say "use X only if Y" instead of "use X if Y" he or she will use "only" or similarly restrictive language. This isn't to say that stuff like "referring to the state in article space after appropriate disambiguation has been given" couldn't be reworded or eliminated (obviously the meaning of this must be limited since otherwise other specific points like "When referring to the pre-1949 Republic..." would be rendered redundant, already covered by the broad point) but to say the most consequential restriction in NC-TW was "Text should not imply that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China. Text should not imply that mainland China, Hong Kong, and/or Macau are part of the Republic of China." NC-TW appeared under a "Political NPOV" section, note a "Names..." section.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to clarify that politics has nothing to do with it for me. I'm not that fussed or insulted at the end of the day, but it's just wrong, and it seems rather pointless for you to keep insisting on it. I note as well that others have taken you to task on this accusation. Thanks for stopping. Given that the NC stands for "Naming Convention" I also don't quite get your insistence that the main focus of the convention was that one sentence on NPOV in susbtantive text, rather than names and terms. The title and the content - including the parts I highlighted - make quite clear what the main bulk of the convention was looking at. Also I don't see the absence of "only" as being quite as significant as you're trying to make it out to be in terms of drafting. The "use A if B, use X if Y"-type construction we have there doesn't need an "only", except for emphasis or to outright exclude the occasional deviation that most rules will sensibly allow for otherwise. It's implicit. As it is that WP should strive to maintain NPOV. Anyway, this is all rather moot, as we've since moved on. N-HH talk/edits 15:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion doesn't belong on this page, but I don't see how the rewritten guidelines should be any different from the rewritten "China" guidelines implemented shortly after the merge of People's Republic of China into China. That is, we will allow Taiwan to be used as a conventional short form (as opposed to the explicit prohibition under the old guidelines) in most contexts, while suggesting the use of Republic of China in contexts where doing so would be more accurate, as it done in scholarly reliable sources.--Jiang (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boson's issue was that the 4th entry of Talk:Republic of China/article guidelines/list points at a section that no longer exists. Perhaps that entry should be removed until replacement guidelines achieve consensus. Kanguole 11:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. John Smith's (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to all editors from ArbCom

Most of the recent discussion on this page has remained relatively civil, which is great; but since so many people are currently taking part it seems like a good venue to disseminate a recent statement from ArmCom:

All users are reminded to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole.

— ArbCom, February 2012

That statement was issued here, and unanimously endorsed. Cheers, Mlm42 (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useless post. None of the individuals who some may think have breached that guideline will think it applies to them. It's always the other guy. The only way to tackle this stuff is to identify specific behaviour that is unacceptable, with really good reasons why, and do something about it. I also know from experience that it's very hard to get agreement on what is disruptive. I think experienced editors continually posting from IP addresses for no rational reason over many months is disruptive. Some don't. Asking all editors to be nice, without tackling real problems, is pointless. That post, while well intentioned, will not actually help this discussion page. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's very hard to get agreement that posts like these[22][23][24] are disruptive. Shrigley (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this: [25], this: [26] and this: [27]. Lots of personal attacks in there; why are you just bringing up benlingsquare?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk • contribs)
Do you think Benlisquare would agree? HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Especially the last one, although I don't think its right to expcilitly target him, as there are others here, but I see your point, and he's been doing it for a while. JPECH95 02:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was never to target Benlisquare as a person; just the behavior. He should know that I think him to be an excellent editor, but it's easy to get swept up in the climate of impunity around these pages. A good part of the problem has to do with the Instantnood IP sockpuppets that are driving everyone crazy as of late. Shrigley (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be so much easier if we could just ignore them? I mean, I know its annoying, but come on. JPECH95 02:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. Not sure how we get everyone to do it. IP editor 147.8.102.172 has just restored a whole lot of deleted posts which basically repeat the same points that we've all read many times before. It's probably best we ignore them, but how do we get everyone to do that? HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a quick concise reply to one point, for users who don't know the whole background. I suggest we just restrain from feeding them long conversations. Of course, if they're judged disruptive I wouldn't at all object to my comment being removed with it. CMD (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the Hong Kong based filibustering. Its blatantly our banned user, no normal IP editor would make more than a single comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo - Re what you say here "I think experienced editors continually posting from IP addresses for no rational reason over many months is disruptive.". Experienced IP editors (inc. me) think you are being disruptive by constantly raising this non-point. It is an established Wikipedia principle that IP editors can participate. Notwithstanding that, IP editors (inc. me) have kindly explained our choice not to create accounts. You choose to ignore those reasons. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, IP editors should be treated the same way as account holders. No better, no worse. Your discussion should take account of this. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, IP editor. HiLo makes a good point; in particular the policy Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is important, and it seems that IP editors on this page may be violating that policy, by intentionally deceiving others - giving the impression that there are many different IP accounts, when in reality it may only be one person. This would be a serious breach of policy; if experienced editors are intentionally deceiving us with rotating IP addresses, then they should be ashamed - or better yet, blocked. Mlm42 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If people are doing sock puppetry using IP or using accounts, they will get caught out by Wiki Systems. I am no sock puppet but you tar me with the same brush. That is unacceptable. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. Please read the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Even if you have never had a registered account, you could still be guilty of sock puppetry. One editor, one account. That's the general rule. Mlm42 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that User:Instantnood has ever edited with an IP outside of Hong Kong - and the behaviour doesn't tally either. Almost all the disruption on pages on Greater China comes from Hong Kong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that IP editors may be in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry even if they have never registered an account (so I'm talking about accounts other than Instantnood socks). Mlm42 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think its pretty clear all the 86.* editors are the same person and that no attempt has been made to hide that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone complaining about anonymous IPs should drop their own anonymity. Tell us your real world name or give us other information that could go towards accountability.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look go and read through Talk:China, WT:Naming conventions (Chinese) and other similar pages - you'll see significant and continued disruption from Hong Kong based IP editors. If you let the abuse go then unfortunately you land up with a situation like Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation) - where really the move request has become a mess.
You'll notice that no-one else is agreeing with you here - in the past others have raised concerns - that they aren't this time is because they recognise that unfortunately the Hong Kong based IP editors are being unambiguously disruptive.
Its not as if there isn't a continued problem and thus a good chance of the IP editors not being related.
In the past I have complained about poor labelling of sock-puppets, but in the cases I have complained about the edits were all reasonable, all or almost all in article space and there was a significant time delay (say 3-6 months) since the previous disruption. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was never with anonymity, it was with ownership, cohesion of discussion and with gaming the system. An IP can be used by anyone, reassigned at any time at the whim of its controlling ISP; an account can only be used by the person who registered it, short of their password being compromised. This creates ownership. The constant shifting and changing of IPs from ISPs with high dynamic range recycling makes it difficult for contributors to follow a discussion - is that contribution by 86.4.* from the same person as that contribution from 86.17.*? Or worse, is it the same person pretending to be different people, as strongly appears to be the case with a Hong Kong contributor here? Sure, a user could register multiple accounts to game the system in the same way, but accounts are a lot easier to investigate and confirm sockpuppetry than IPs are. Further, when semi-protection kick in, as they did recently due to the disruption caused by an IP editor in this topic area, IP editors are the ones that lose their ability to edit. It's a myth that IP editors are equal in all respects on Wikipedia - it's something we strive for, but it's not something we will ever fully achieve.
The bottom line is that we all try our best to assume good faith, but in the end, IP addresses cause issues of ownership and cohesion and serve as an enabler for breaking the rules in almost-undetectable ways. Combine that with a topic area of moderate controversy and proven extensive exploitation of IP editing by a banned user in the aforementioned topic area over a period of years and it shouldn't be surprising that the good faith of editors is slowly eroded. Anonymity has never been the issue - in fact, I've specifically pointed out to IP editors many times in the past that you are in fact more anonymous when editing from an account than you are from an IP address. An IP address can be used to geolocate you, it can be used to identify your ISP and in some cases can even be used to retrieve personal information. A uniquely chosen account name can be used for none of those things. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion above was hidden under the hat "More filibustering from Hong Kong based IP's" yet I think if hiding others' comments is appropriate a rationale could be found other than that the speaker is apparently from Hong Kong. See Poisoning the well. I'd rather hat off-topic discussions like this section and leave on-topic discussions regardless of who is involved. If there is a problem with IP editors it should be dealt with on a project-wide basis. If there's truly such a problem it should be easy to get several independent admins to agree by laying out the issue at the Admin Noticeboard such that their agreement to some sort of policy with respect to HK-based IPs could then be referenced. Absent this, hiding and removing comments or reverting based solely on IP's country location continues to strike me as vigilantism that can be abused.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for advice from User:HelloAnnyong, the admin who blocked IP 218.250.159.25 for sockpuppetry. IP 147.8.102.172 has a 54% overlap of common edits with 218.250.159.25, expressing the same views [28]. Both IP addresses geolocate to Hong Kong. I think it's safe to say per WP:DUCK at this point that the IP is yet another reincarnation of the same blocked editor, still trying to circumvent his ban and disrupt discussion. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 147 IP is now blocked for ban evasion. I assume you have no issue with that section being collapsed now? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of this addresses my point that poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. Aside from that, Eraserhead1 told this IP his or her contribution constituted "vandalism" (and not just to a Talk page but to "Wikipedia"). If it's vandalism it's well informed vandalism. Is it unreasonable for me to agree with admin Deryck Chan who said that "I worry some editors simply using "sockpuppet of Instantnood" as an excuse to scare away any editor who tries to resurrect any old article debate or edit dispute concerning anything related to the Greater China region"? I'm astounded by the extent to which several supporters of this move have been coordinating with each other, given that my years of experience on Wikipedia have taught me that trying to get like-minded editors to work together is like herding cats.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on other editors. I wouldn't have called it vandalism myself so you'll probably have to ask Eraserhead1 what his reasons were. I don't see any conscious effort to poison the well on IP editors either, and I'll point out that it's only usually regarded as a logical fallacy when it takes the form of an ad hominem, though in this case, the following from our ad hominem article is relevant, from academic Doug Walton: "ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue". I believe that given the strong proof and ongoing new evidence of an IP editor from Hong Kong attempting to disrupt the natural course of discussion here to serve his own politically-motivated goals, it's not unreasonable to raise awareness of the possibility of this continuing in the form of a new IP editor from Hong Kong who may coincidentally appear. The remainder of my commentary on IP editors is limited to personal comfort, identifying why I have more difficulty interacting with IP editors than I do regular editors and presented, I would hope, in the same way I might ask an editor not to write in allcaps, or to use proper sentences instead of constant run-on ones like this one, not out of any effort to discredit them but simply as a matter of courtesy in easing communication. As for coordinating efforts, I don't think I've ever dealt with any of the regulars here before so if there's a coordinated effort going on, I'm not part of it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reason (maybe its not an acceptable one) is that then you can block the guy through AIV, which is much faster than for sock puppetry, and frankly it was blindingly obvious that it was yet more disruption from Hong Kong based IPs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is less than "blindingly obvious" to me that calling attention to Ireland (versus Republic of Ireland) precedent constitutes "disruption."--Brian Dell (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not why I called it vandalism. I'm not going to WP:BEANS and give my exact reasoning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read all of the above but insofar as it proposes to "generalise" about a group of editors who share a common characteristic - IP editors in Hong Kong - I regard that as plain "discrimination": Treating people differently on the basis of a particular characterisitic they have no control over (in this case the fact that they are IP editors in Hong Kong). If there is prove that any one, an account holder or an IP editor is breaking the rules, the usual procedures should apply. In the absence of that, discriminating on some pretext is plain wrong. (p.s. for clarity I am not Hong Kong based, although if I was that should not matter). 86.42.178.193 (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
No it shouldn't but if there has been massive disruption from a single location I think you'd agree that its much better to prevent IP editors from that location contributing if we can rather than preventing all IP editors in the whole world from contributing.
The alternative would be to semi-protect the page and prevent all IP editors (and new users) from being able to contribute. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if someone has given a good reason why a wise, experienced, sensible editor would choose to not register. I must have missed it. I'm open minded to seeing the reason. But please note that "Wikipedia rules allow it" is not a reason. I'll also point out that several good reasons have been given FOR registering. These include - numbers (rather than names) are harder for other editors to keep track of, IP addresses can change, destroying continuity of argument, and using just an IP address makes you an easy target for allegations of sockpuppetry. So, all these negatives and no positives. Why not register? HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible reason why people don't register, and edit as IPs? A good one is culture. Not all cultures put significant light on online identities, and simply prefer being a nobody, or a number. See Japanese Wikipedia#Characteristics - a significant number of contributions made to the Japanese Wikipedia, mostly constructive, were made by anonymous users. Whilst IPs are seen as either vandals or socks on the English Wikipedia, someone from another part of the world may not share that same sentiment. In Hong Kong there are many BBSes that allow anonymous posting. In Japan, Facebook and Twitter are not as popular compared to the west because they require creating accounts and sharing real-life identifiable information; many still prefer to use 2channel, for instance, which is centred along anonymous posting. Sure, an IP is also identifiable, but it means that one does not have to create an account, an act seem by some as an "attention-seeking" thing to do. See also Wikipedia:IPs are human too. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's fair to say we regard IPs as vandals on Wikipedia. I think it's more fair to say that in topic areas that have been heavily vandalised by IP editors, IP editors are treated with caution and aren't afforded the same good faith as they would get elsewhere on the project. I don't think this is a wholly unreasonable position for editors to have. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation benlisquare. It's certainly one I wasn't aware of, so I've learnt something. I guess my response would be that this is English Wikipedia, and we native English speaking editors have worked very hard to explain what the conventions are here, and why, only to be confronted by continuing antagonism from the IP editors. I travel a bit, and try hard to follow the philosophy of "When in Rome...." If I was trying to convince editors on another Language Wikipedia of my point of view (unlikely because of my lack of linguistic skills), I reckon I'd work hard to follow the local customs. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny to hear you speaking about "conventions" as if you're a respectable member of this community, when in reality you spend 90% of your time trolling WP:ITN and every admin you encounter is deciding between getting you blocked or avoiding you. JimSukwutput 08:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, give it a rest. Your own comment could be considered trolling. John Smith's (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48 made many personal attacks in this issue which were rather insulting nor do I recall him apologizing for his statements. But John Smith your own statement that we are in "denial" was also a personal attack; watch your words carefully in this argument.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People on Wikipedia always misuse the word "trolling", it's odd but I guess it can't be helped. Apparently any comment that is unsatisfactory is "trolling"; whenever I see that word being used, I myself am wondering as to whether I'm being trolled, in the genuine sense. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I support the move, I can't help but to agree with the comments above that a few prominent editors from the "pro-move" camp have without a doubt made scathing personal attacks on editors who are opposing the move. It is fine to debate the issue in an respectful and civil way, but I don't think that mudslinging and personal insults to an individual's character and beliefs should be tolerated at all, especially those who claim to be from civilized, mature, democratic societies. Raiolu (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And do check the definition of a personal attack. It does not include firm, vigorous, and absolute condemnation of a post, such as "That post was complete and utter garbage". If, however, I said "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries", THAT would be a personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure...I clearly remember two posts by HiLo48 where just the edit summary was a personal attack: "Stupid...not helping your political cause" (borderline) and "Incompetence, bad manners...". No matter the frequency of personal attacks, most of HiLo48's posts have zero civility, so you two (Eraserhead included) can deny all you want. GotR Talk 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repetitive off-topic, politically motivated posts from IP editors who make conversations impossible to follow are disruptive and, especially because of their oft repeated nature, are very uncivil themselves and so lose their right to civil responses. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That said HiLo you should tone down your edit summaries. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a quick look back. Several of my alleged uncivil Edit summaries have been in response to posts with no Edit summaries at all. That's yet another unsatisfactory behaviour from those who are really creating the problems here. It's frustrating to be told so often to keep being nice to people who really are troublemakers. I don't believe it's an effective response. The evidence is that they're still doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...incompetence, illiteracy...": [29]. "What drugs are you on": [30]. Another one: "It's an attempt to get very misled and mistaken (or stupid?) editors to see reality.": [31]. Just in case you don't see it: you've called people 1) illiterate, 2) drug addled and 3) stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.143 (talk • contribs)

HiLo, many established editors rarely use substantive edit summaries on talk pages as well, and unless an edit to a talk page involves moving/modifying another's text, I don't see how they are required. That is simply another lame excuse. GotR Talk 15:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. HiLo what you've said isn't good enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ip addresses and socking

I'm a new editor (but i've been watching this debate and I have read wikipedia policy), I am not the anon ips who edited earlier. I want to point out that Mlm42's accusations against the ip (not the sock one) are invalid. The ip address never said editing multiple accounts and pretending them to be separate was okay

Firstly, many ip addresses do not intentionally rotate their ip's, because they are not static. They are dynamic. Dynamic IP, Static IP Everytime they shut their router off (if they turn of all electronics in their house when they go to bed), the ip address will change when they turn it back on, and its not their fault.

Secondly, this is what the ip actually said ["If people are doing sock puppetry using IP or using accounts, they will get caught out by Wiki Systems. I am no sock puppet but you tar me with the same brush. That is unacceptable. 86.42.178.193 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)"]

He is probably making a reference to the Checkuser tool, pointing out that socks will be easily found out whether its an ip or an account through the Checkuser after they are brought to an investigation. Little effort is required. He never said socking and pretending to be different people was okay, which was what Mlm42 claimed he said.

I read the wiki policy on socking, WP:SOCKPUPPET. Owning multiple accounts is not prohibited, as long as they user openly says they are operating a sock and their other accounts is "XXX". The usage of multiple accounts and pretending them to be different persons to abuse wikipedia rules in debates and votes like these is prohibited.

The ip editor from hong kong, from what I see, has never tried to hide the fact that he was one person. he openly said why were my edits deleted, and he probably didn't intentionally change his ip address, most likely he turned his router off at night.

And I personally don't know why people think its easier to sock in an ip address. From what I see, its harder, (ip addresses can be traced immediately without Checkuser) and not only that, your anoniminity is more exposed as an ip than as an account, since people can trace your ip address and find out everything about you, your internet service, your location.Niyaendi (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I still don't get is, if you know, and find frustrating, the fact that you get a new IP address every time you turn on your computer, and it makes you a suspected sock, and makes conversation more difficult, why you then don't register? It would simplify things sooooo much for everybody. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is directed at me, I will respond. Firstly, there are several different IP addresses on this page, including different one's from Hong Kong, and it's not clear which ones you are referring to. Several of the IP addresses from Hong Kong have been recently blocked for sockpuppetry. If you are referring to the editor who edits from the several 86.* IP addresses, then yes, they appear to be the same person, and if they don't try to hide that, it shouldn't be a problem. I don't think I accused that editor specifically for sockpuppetry; my statements were about IP editors on this page in general. Hope that clears things up. Mlm42 (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say "it's not clear which ones (IP addresses) you are referring to". Well, the problem is, I have no idea either. You see, it's not normal human nature to remember strings of numbers that long. Seven digits is regarded as the limit for most people (See Working memory#Capacity), and IP addresses can be up to twelve digits long. My eyes glaze over when I see an IP address. It takes too much effort to try to differentiate them. But humans have been giving each other names for aeons. It's what works best. Totalitarian regimes throughout history have taken away the names and given numbers to their prisoner/slave classes, as a way of diminishing their humanity. Why anyone would choose to inflict such a stigma on themselves is beyond me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're from 'Straya like me, don't 'Strayan mobile phone numbers have 10 digits? (You know, 04XX XXX XXX?) And oh boy, wait till IPv6 becomes standard; if IPv4 is hard for you, I'm sure IPv6 (example address 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334) will rustle your jimmies even more. The good thing with IPv6 though is that we won't have mysterious deniable socks anymore; ISPs revolve IPv4 allocations because of limitations (address exhaustion); IPv6 openly shares the MAC address as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember any mobile phone numbers. My phone does that for me. And some time ago I worked as a network engineer. I'm kinda glad I moved on before IPv6. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here, Niyaendi, that the Hong Kong IP editor you mention has been blocked repeatedly for ban evasion, not for sock puppetry. It's common practice to refer to a banned editor who returns on an IP address to circumvent their ban as a sockpuppet, usually because the IP is deliberately hiding the fact they belong to a banned editor for obvious reasons. In the case of the Hong Kong editor, it hasn't been suggested that, for example, 147.X is a sock of 147.Y, but rather that both 147.X and 147.Y are socks of User:Instantnood. And as noted, these addresses have been blocked for ban evasion in most cases, as can be seen in their block logs. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posts from those struggling with English

The latest oppose post above reads "Republic of China is country name and it not same as Taiwan. Taiwan just a island and NOT a country." This is clearly from someone for whom English is not a first language, nor even a strong one. This is not the only post of this nature.

The rational for the proposed move is the fact that the country is described as Taiwan all around the world by English speakers. I submit that someone who cannot use English properly has no standing when it comes to this RfC.

I suspect that this idea may cause some strong reactions, but this IS English language Wikipedia, not broken English Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved his comment down to the SPA section, the user hasn't made any edits outside his userspace since 2007 - additionally they are a native speaker of Cantonese so I imagine they've been reading zh-wiki or that notice is on zh-yue wiki as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proficient or not, this is still a free Encyclopedia. People should be allowed to participate accordingly. Please stop trying to silence the voices that disagree with you.
@HiLo48 I'm American with Eurasian ancestry and I understood what she/he meant and I agree with it. And your last part you should have kept that to yourself.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a free encyclopedia (in all the definitions of "free"), all voices must matter or none do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48 isn't suggesting they be silenced, only that their opinion doesn't hold weight on an RfC on a name for an article in an English encyclopaedia. CMD (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. I just knew that some political correctness inclined folk would misinterpret my post. This is English Wikipedia. The RfC is about what this country is known as by English speakers around the world. The thoughts of someone not comfortable with English are largely irrelevant. And I did not ask that anyone be silenced. Such a dishonest accusation and misrepresentation shows the true contempt for free speech held by some here. Tellingly, the badly indented accusation is unsigned and, upon further investigation, can be seen to be from an anonymous IP editor. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps what you are looking for is WP:COMPETENCE? (Last time I used that link in a discussion, I was threatened with a block, because it's apparently incivil to post that link in a heated debate, and that it constitutes a violation of WP:NPA. I would like to note that in this case, I am merely making a suggestion of a WP-namespace link to refer to, and I am not accusing anyone of being incompetent. And no, this disclaimer isn't an overreaction, just a "just in case".) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually of course it shouldn't matter what people's level of competence in English is, because the point of a naming discussion is not for us all to offer our own opinions on what something "should" be called based on our personal understanding of the underlying issues or complex linguistics, but simply to look at sources and actual usage. Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of English can look at all the encyclopedia, reference/almanack, official and media sources offered here and immediately see that "Taiwan" is, unquestionably, by far the most common term used to define and refer to the thing that this page is about. The problem is more that some people - including some with very good or native English - think the idea is to read round that and ignore it all in favour of their own analysis; or to assert suddenly that, for some undefined reason, wp:commonname doesn't apply here. N-HH talk/edits 11:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many people in Israel, and in the Israeli media refer to Binyamin Netanyahu as Bibi. They even write in in written form in news articles. We arent' moving the Netanyahu article to Bibi. For over 50 years the Republic of China's government on Taiwan specifically emphasized in both native Chinese and foreign language English media (such as American media), that the government on Taiwan was the real china, and the PRC was an illegitimate rebel regime, referring to Taiwan as "free China", emphasizing that Taiwan was Chinese, that its people wree all descendants of chinese immigrants and spoke chinese dialects. Many American government videos emphasized that the country was "free china", its location was "taiwan", "leader of peoples of free China on the island of taiwan"
HiLo48's accusation is also invalid. Showing us a sentence where three words are ommitted is not proof that the person is not a native english speaker. He could just have been typing fast. The way he said it was "Republic of China is country name and it not same as Taiwan. Taiwan (is missing here) just a island and NOT a country."
Had he been a native chinese speaker, for instance, the word "is" (to be) is used exactly the same way in chinese as it is in english. "Wo Shi taiwan ren" (I am a taiwan person). Unlike Arabic which does not need that verb, if I said, "Ana taiwani" (literal translation would be "I Taiwanese").
His sentence shows that he knew that he should have placed an "is" in the correct place after China, but he did not add "is" after Taiwan. He knew how to use the "to be" verb very clearly and just skipped it, could have been fast typing. The Chinese sentence would be extremely like the English one with an almost 1 to 1 word correspondence "Zhonghuaminguo (Republic of China) shi(is) yige(a) guojia(country) de(possesive, like 's in english) mingzi(name)" Niyaendi (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that now, in the 21st century the Taiwanese government is perfectly happy to call itself Taiwan. Additionally the vast, vast majority of English language sources use Taiwan to refer to the country, you might not like it but that's how the world is.
If Bibi truly is the common name for Binyamin Netanyahu then lets move the article. Bill Clinton is a good example of something that's at its WP:COMMONAME - even though that isn't his name. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Eraserhead1 says, if "Bibi" was the common name, it would be better to move the article. But a very large number of (English speaking) people who are not Israeli do not know who "Bibi" is. So that's probably why a move attempt to Bibi would fail. However, in comparison everyone knows what Taiwan is, unless they know virtually nothing about Asian geography. You'll be hard pressed to find people who know what the ROC is but not what Taiwan is. However, there are people that know of Taiwan but not the ROC/don't understand what the ROC is. John Smith's (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is even worth replying to, given how fatuous the "bibi" example is. First, it is not as common or as clear as Binyamin Netanyahu anyway; secondly, it is a nickname. Our naming rules - especially when applied to country articles - are quite clear that we prefer the common name as found in reliable and authoritative sources; and fairly obviously, as a purported encylocpedia, we are going to use more formal, although not necessarily official, names and terms. It's not hard. N-HH talk/edits 13:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. How much obfuscation will you go to to disprove an obviously true point that I made? It's all so very sad. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there supposed to be people on Wikipedia monitoring these Rush Limbaugh like comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a vote as the closer is supposed to weigh all the answers and give proper weight to the best reasons when making his/her decision. That being said when we are trying to decide the best place to put an article in the English wikipedia, using the best English sourcing we can find, then certainly those who can barely speak English should be dropped way down on the totem pole of worthiness. Don't silence them, we don't want that, but their influence should be miniscule at this English Wikipedia just as English speakers should be (and are) miniscule at affecting policy at a Polish or Czech Wikipedia. I'm sure administrative closers take all that into account since it's common sense. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia dictated by native speakers of the English language? I speak English as my first language. I am really shocked to learn that there is such a view. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would doing this be better? Just think of it suddenly.

Would it be better to, instead of moving Republic of China to Taiwan and create a new Republic of China article with those content that's not suitable for article Taiwan, put those content that suitable for Taiwan into Free area of the Republic of China and then move it to Taiwan and leave the remaining parts as is? C933103 (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free area of the Republic of China is a very specific article about a legal designation. It shouldn't be moved to a country article. CMD (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to that article, the term is a legal and political description about the region actually ruled by the government. It's just a description of the region and how many to be included can be changed. And as the "Nomenclature" section stated, the term "Taiwan Area" refer to this region. Which is more closer to the proposed content for the proposed Taiwan article than the article "Republic of China", which also include part of the government's history before its government move to Taiwan. And it seems to be more reasonable for the word refer to the area instead of refer to the whole RoC. And in this way the article Taiwan will probably be something being part of Republic of China similar to Republika Srpska or Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina being part of Bosnia and Herzegovina which made the relationship between two articles be clearer, when comparing to the proposal appeared few sections above. C933103 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This situation bears no resemblance to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The proposed Taiwan article (by which I basically mean this current article) is not just about an area or just about a legal term. It's about the country. CMD (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, would it be better to just describe all sort of things about the area in Taiwan and leaving what about the country in Republic of China, in contrast to the current proposal. C933103 (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's basically the current setup. The whole point in this move is that the country is called Taiwan. CMD (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But as far as I observed majority amount of evident that support the original proposal does not against this proposal.C933103 (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of outside sources use Taiwan as the name of the country. That is per the commonname argument evidence against this proposal. CMD (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to those usage example at the top of the page supporting this move, except first four, in all others the use of Taiwan can be seen as use Taiwan as the name of the area too C933103 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is irrelevant as to what the country is called. CMD (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
他的意思就是“台湾”不是一个地区，“台湾”是一个国家。（注：这观点跟我无关） (Tr: What he means is that "Taiwan" isn't an area; instead, "Taiwan" is a country. (Disclaimer: This opinion has no relation to (those of) myself.)) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
我的意思就是“Taiwan”（英文词语）不是一个地区，“Taiwan”是一个国家。Same as above, but with a note it's the English term, not the Chinese, which I'm discussing. CMD (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about Liam's proposal? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It still leaves this page not at its commonname. CMD (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia we don't have every single country article at its common name. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do unless they aren't the primary topic for their common name. CMD (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the ROC the primary topic of "Taiwan"? The island wasn't even part of the ROC. Neither is it all what the ROC now got. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is, whatever you call it. CMD (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Currently the primary topic of "Taiwan" is Taiwan, which is a subset of the ROC since 1945, and part of the Empire of Japan between 1895 and 1945. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A rather nonsensical response to my above comment, but since you lack any evidence for your assertion, it has no foot to stand on. CMD (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's what every reasonable person can tell from the first three paragraphs of the article currently under the title Taiwan. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political rhetoric, Taiwanese identity

There is politically charged rhetoric by certain Users on who support the move. The reference to the KMT "imposing" a name by User:John Smith is totally against the rules, he also makes an (unsupported) claim about Taiwanese rarely claiming they are from the ROC. He also goes into (again) totally unsubstantiated speculation (WP:CRYSTALBALL), claiming that Taiwan "would" have changed its name if China did not "threaten" it. it looks as though the move camp is trying dissassociate Taiwan from any connotation of Chinese, rather than really caring about WP:COMMONNAME.

Even if you succeed in changing the name of the article, the fact remains, that like how Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Qatar, and Yemen are all Arab countries, despite being separate countries, you will not succeed in deleting every single reference to "china", or "chinese" from this article. The Arab people article mentions all the countries arabs are in, the han chinese article mentions all the countries han chinese are in the majority, which are the PRC, ROC, and Singapore.

The former President of the ROC, the pro independence DPP Chen Shui=bian mentioned several times that his hometown was in fujian provvince in China. Anyone who is trying to deny that Taiwanese are descended from Chinese people originating in China is pushing a political agenda, which nobody in Taiwan accepts. (pro independence taiwanese trace their ancestry back to villages in china even while supporting independence and visit relatives)

When Chen met an assembly of Taiwanese at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel On May 21 in 2001, he referred to all of the audience and himself as "Chinese", not as "Taiwanese"

If you guys stop the political talk, then I wouldn't need bring this up. The only non political argument which was brought up was the COMMONNAME one, all the references to "taiwanese people are not chinese" and "KMT forced the name on Taiwan" are political.Niyaendi (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman arguments all. No-one is trying to purge "China" and "Chinese from this article. That hasn't even been suggested. CMD (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. No one's suggesting any of those things and this kind of arcane political debate is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. N-HH talk/edits 16:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ROC is not called ROC because there are people with Chinese ancestry that trace back to some mainland family. The ancestry argument is worse than the politics ones. ROC is called ROC because it has a continuous left over ROC government. You can also find (plenty of) examples of Japanese people with ancestry that trace back to some parts of some Chinese dynasties. That doesn't mean Japan is part of China. In fact if 100% of Taiwanese are proven ethnically Chinese, they can still be independent. Benjwong (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're both missing the point. Its not a straw man argument, and I didn't start this argument. I saw with my own eyes, John Smith's comment about the KMT and taiwanese identity. He said Taiwanese identify as (insert political rhetoric here), not me. And John Smith edited an article on the ROC military to insert the word "taiwanese". He is the one who is making the argument that taiwanese are not chinese, you seem to be projecting his argument upon me.Niyaendi (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Smith said "Even Taiwanese people very rarely refer to themselves as coming from the Republic of China and refer to coming from Taiwan." There is no political rhetoric. There is no attempt to try and purge "China" and "Chinese" from articles on Taiwan. Your arguments are strawman arguments. You picked a few sentences from one comment that have nothing to do with the primary argument, took them way way too far with far more meaning than was intended, and extrapolated this to the entire "move camp", in order to assert this move is a politically motivated action. This is not only completely wrong (and you don't even attempt to make any argument about COMMONNAME), but a gross misrepresentation of many who have voiced support for the move. CMD (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you left out an entire part of the comment by John Smith's- "The fact Taiwan's official title is "Republic of China" doesn't matter. Furthermore, one should also note that whilst the country has not changed its name, this was a name imposed on it by the KMT. And arguably the name would have been changed if China did not threaten to go to war over it (and the US and other Taiwan-friendly nations didn't encourage it not to change its name)."
If thats not political then I am Santa Claus.Niyaendi (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at John Smith's first 500 edits, and did CTRL+F with the words "Chinese" and "China". I found out that he deleted ROC citizens from the chinese people article , he added "taiwan" to the ROC armed forces article, and deleted the category of chinese from an article of a taiwanese american tennis player
Even though Hilo engaged in personal attacks to the anon ips, since they are on the opposite side of his position he didn't say anything political about the ROC. John Smith did.Niyaendi (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noticing that, but I must point out that I did not make personal attacks. I made very strong and firm comments about how bad and unhelpful it is when long term editors (or so they claim) fail to register. And if someone only posts from an IP address, which could change at any time, how can I really be attacking a person? It could be someone else tomorrow! HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a paranthetical note so that people will know what the topic that's being discussed is, removing a meaning from a disambiguation page that the term is never exclusively applied to, and removing a redundant overarching category are not massive political statements. Neither is his train of thought, which is just a little forumy, but not at all an issue. At any rate, this means what exactly? One user, making a simple statement, does not affect the move request in any way. This is an irrelevant tangent, attempting to pin political motivations on all the supporters, and which as you admitted in your first post says nothing at all about WP:COMMONNAME. If you want to refute "the only non political argument which was brought up", then please try, as that is the argument. Everything else is pointless irrelevancy. CMD (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. You don't seem to understand that making inflammatory comments like claiming a political party (kuomintang) is "forcing" an identity upon a people and that "if china didn't threaten to go to war" are political statements. I didn't just look through John Smith's recent edits either. I skimmed through all of them from his entire time on wiki, and he constantly accuses other people of being "fenqing" (chinese nationalists), or "mao supporters", engaging in inflammatory edit wars, denying the nanking massacre, taking the side of japan againsit China in the senkaku islands dispute, in short, in every single dispute on wikipedia, he is against anything chinese, and seems to have a deep seated hatred for all things chinese. In every single dispute I've seen in his edit history, he always votes against any chinese users in RFCs or discussions, and comes up on the "pro japan side". to him, every single chinese user on wiki or users perceived to take an opposite POV against him are "Fenqing" or rabid Communist party acolytes. Look through his edits yourself. From the wiki policies I'm aware of, this kind of behavior would have called for an RFC a long time ago.
he was also quite eager to get any pro ROC users on this talk page banned in sockpuppet investigations without waiting for evidence, jumping the gun at his first change.
He has also made other imflammatory comments on this talk page itself, comparing the naming dispute over Taiwan to the armenian genocide, suggesting that the equivalent of keeping this page as "Republic of China" is equivalent to denying the armenian genocide (he seems to have absolutely no problem denying the nanking massacre). That is totally irrelevant, poolitical, and imflammatory. Go do a CTRL+F for "armenian" on this talk page to see the comment.Niyaendi (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blah, blah, blah. This has no effect on the only valid issue on this page--WP:COMMONNAME. The arguments to move this to "Taiwan" are conclusive and have not been refuted with any facts or evidence. And remember that the "votes" above are not votes, per se. This article will be moved based solely on the policy argument that "Taiwan" is the most common name in English for Taiwan. The opinions above really only guide the admin who will perform the move to show that the WP:COMMONNAME argument has convinced a sufficient number of editors to not be simply a fringe position. Since the opponents of the move have presented absolutely no relevant facts to oppose WP:COMMONNAME... --Taivo (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that John Smith's needs a severe warning or blocks for ad hominem attacks, not only did he mention the armenian genocide TWICE, and compared pro ROC editors to genocide deniers, he accused all of them of being chinese nationalists. He has a history of accusing his opponents of being chinese nationalists, mao supporters, fenqing, edit warring on mao zedong related topics, pushing pro japan POV at senkaku islands, denying the nanking massacre, and basically attacking every allegedly "pro chinese" editor he comes across, why isn't he topic banned from chinese related topics?Niyaendi (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see them comparing other editors to genocide deniers. That article was simply being pointed to as an example in respect of "POV" titles. Nor do I see any evidence for your other wild accusations about them. I think it's quite clear where the ad hominems and POV - not to mention the single-purpose activity - are coming from in this little sideshow. A shame really, as we had got rid of the worst of it from this page for a day or so after our IP-hopping friend was blocked. N-HH talk/edits 19:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If John Smith is an issue, then that should be dealt with elsewhere. His political views actions on other pages are completely unrelated to this move discussion, and don't affect the merits or problems of this move request in the slightest. CMD (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot to show User:N-NH John Smith's extensive block log. Lets dig into it, shall we? block for 3 RR on nanking massacre, blocked for 3rr on Jung Chang (who wrote a biography of Mao), blocked for edit warring on great leap forward (another mao related topic), blocked for warring on Type 45 destroyer, and blocked another four times for unsaid reasons
Three of those blocks were for china related topics
Disputes John Smith's involved in- taking pro Japan side at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands, inserting unreliable sources which attacked the Chinese at Boxer Rebellion (removed for being unreliable), and at the opposite end, attacking a "pro chinese" source which turned out to be reliable (see bottom of [32])
More of John Smith's aggresive POV pushing at Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 5 ‎ Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 7 ‎ Talk:Jung Chang/Archive 2
WP:PEACOCK at , any book that criticizes Mao Zedong according to John Smith gets good reviews, and any criticism of the book gets defamed by John
These are only things I obtained from his last 500 recent edits and his 500 earliest edits, during which he also repeatedly edited the Armenian Genocide article
John Smith takes a strong stand against the turks at the Armenian genocide article- [33] [34]- since I also consider it to have been a genocide, I won't comment on his POV, rather, the fact that he is against the turks (even making personal attacks such as saying things to the effec that" I won't compare you to the germans since they apologized for what they did"), and his equivalencing of pro ROC users to these Turks show that his comments are intended as personal attacks.
"Listen, if we can refer to the Armenian GENOCIDE on this project without the world burning down by Turkish nationalists, we can certainly refer to a country as Taiwan. John Smith's (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)"
"What "original sources" could possibly be relevant to this discussion if they're in Chinese? This is not a historical or academic discussion. We are focusing on the modern state of Taiwan, not the KMT's pre-1949 existence in China. We keep coming back to the same point, which is that in English the country is referred to as Taiwan. It would not be confusing in the slightest to ensure that the article is titled accordingly. It might be distressing to some Chinese nationalists or die-hard KMT supporters, but it was also distressing for Turkish nationalists to see the Armenian Genocide so titled. Wikipedia didn't change the article title to suit them. We focus on what is best understood by English-speaking users. If Chinese speakers don't like it, they can use the Chinese Wikipedia. John Smith's (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)"
And this has nothing to do with the move request. I said John Smith should be disciplined for A) POV pushing on chinese related topics B) personal attacks, (equivilizing people who oppose the move to genocide deniers).
If N-NH has anything to say about the move, and nothing about John Smith's behavior, then don't post in this section. I've posted here because the personal attacks and POV pushing took place HERE.Niyaendi (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don't have anything else to say, I will take up the personal attacks and pov pushing somewhere else, you go aobut your voting.Niyaendi (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. This talk page is for discussing changes to the Republic of China article. If you have an issue with an editor, you should take it up in an appropriate venue elsewhere. I will note, however, that 6 blocks is hardly 'extensive', and these blocks are 5 years old. If you need to trawl that far back in an editor's history to find dirt on them, you're trying way too hard. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Island fallacy

The Kingdom of Bahrain and Bahrain Island are clearly very different articles. The Kingdom of Bahrain calls itself Bahrain in both arabic and english, which is why the common name Bahrain is used for both country and island. The Republic of China does not call itself the republic of taiwan. Taiwan is a physical location, an island.

An even better example is Great Britain. Great Britain refers to the island the country is one, like Taiwan. The official name of the country, the United Kingdom, is used for the country's article, while Great Britain is kept enirely separate. The ROC and Taiwan should also be kept separate The pro move camp, which mentioned Great Britain sevearl times, somehow failed to register this.

Island=Great Britan=Taiwan

Country=United Kingdom=Republic of China

And also according to this fallacy, if we really want to apply common name, how about showing us the percentage of sources which call the United Kingdom by the names "Great Britain", or simply as "england"? If one of them appears at greater frequency than the United Kingdom then that article should be moved.Niyaendi (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting post. I support the move. I do not see myself as part of any camp. While I have some knowledge of and interest in local politics of the area, it is irrelevant to the simple, fundamental point that the common name for this country throughout the English speaking world is Taiwan. Saying that I, as part of some "camp", have failed to register anything, is not a rational comment, or if rational, insulting. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Great Britain is used more than United Kingdom initiate a move request that's perfectly reasonable.
With regards to England as it is specifically used to refer to a subset (i.e. England) calling the whole country "England" would be confusing as native English speakers frequently use the term to refer only to England. In English people don't do that with either China or Taiwan. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bahrain and Bahrain Island are certainly very different articles: the former covers all aspects of the country from government to geography, while the latter is a stub. I don't think that helps your case. Other island countries you might consider are Iceland, Cuba, Madagascar and Sri Lanka.
The difference between the territory of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain is clear on maps like File:British Isles United Kingdom.svg (which will also serve if Ireland is to be your next example). Besides, "Great Britain" (unlike "Britain") isn't a very common name for the country. Kanguole 08:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a "camp" here. There is only the simple, amply referenced fact that English speakers use "Taiwan" by an order of magnitude (at least) in preference to "Republic of China" to refer to both the country and the island of Taiwan. Since the boundaries of the country are nearly contiguous to the island, then separating the two is unnecessary. Iceland and Sri Lanka are perfect parallels. The issue here is about WP:COMMONNAME and nothing else. Is there any real ambiguity between the island and the country that is different than the situations of Iceland and Sri Lanka? No. Is there anything to say about the island that doesn't also apply to the country? No. We can even look at other similar examples such as Tasmania and Greenland where the articles refer to both an island and a state or country (that happen to include a couple of smaller islands in addition to the main islands). And it is not unknown in Wikipedia to name an article on a country after the common English name rather than the official name, as at Burma rather than "Myanmar". --Taivo (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the island of Taiwan and the entire ROC is clear on maps too Kanguole. ROC's Fujianese islands are on the other side of the strait, and its South China Sea islands are much farther away. These islands are like Northern Ireland or Bahrain's Hawar Islands. Unlike Bahrain Island with respect to Bahrain, however, Taiwan got its own history that predates the founding of and the annexation by the ROC. The ROC inherits the previous Chinese dynasties. It isn't a successor of the Middag kingdom or the Dutch, Japanese and Spanish colonies on Taiwan. 202.189.98.135 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest difference between the United Kingdom and the ROC is that it is commonly called the United Kingdom because they it's what they want to be called to distance itself from its Imperialist past (Great Britain). ROC, OTOH, is called Taiwan because the fringe independence groups in the ROC want it to be called that (Republic of Taiwan) and the PRC refuses to let it be called China (Taiwan Province). Either way, it doesn't reflect on how the VAST MAJORITY of ROC citizens see themselves and want to be called (中華民國). United States, United Kingdom, Congo, Bahrain, these are all names chosen by the countries themselves, Taiwan is a name that has been imposed on the Republic of China. That's why this move is seen by so many to be offensive; all these Wikipedians want to impose the name of "Taiwan" on them instead of their chosen name of "Republic of China". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.147 (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The opinions of the citizens of Taiwan don't matter in the English-language Wikipedia. All that matters in the English-language Wikipedia is what English speakers call something and the overwhelming majority of English language usage is to call Taiwan "Taiwan". The citizens of Taiwan can call the country whatever they want in the Chinese-language Wikipedia. But English speakers are looking for "Taiwan" and that's what we need to call the article in the English-language Wikipedia. The only issue that needs to be considered here is what English speakers call Taiwan. They call it "Taiwan". --Taivo (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If what the citizen's or the government's opinions of a country do not matter, why do we not call the United Kingdom, "Britain"? That is what it is commonly known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UK and Britain are equally common. UK is less ambiguous. Anyway this is all utterly irrelevant. If there's an issue there, here's the talk page for that article. As noted ad nauseam, the issue here is a simple one: what is the common name for this place in reliable, serious English-language sources? It's "Taiwan". Done. Even if you can show us some serious, authoritative sources to back up your vague claims about what it should be called or how "Taiwan" is "incorrect", not neutral or minority-usage - which you and everyone else making similar claims have, unsurprisingly, signally failed to do - only the last of those, if definitive, would override the provisions of common name. N-HH talk/edits 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are the ones that want to make this move so, you have to prove the move must be done. The fact that WP:COMMONNAME isn't applied either equally or consistently (United States instead of the much more commonly known USA; or United Kingdom instead of the more commonly known Britain), you guys haven't proven that the move to Taiwan must be made or that WP:COMMONNAME must be applied in all instances and to this article in particular. As above, people have mentioned the move from China = PRC had people saying it won't affect the ROC article at all; where are we now? Mark my words, "President of Taiwan" is just around the corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.147 (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what? HiLo48 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what indeed. "Us guys" have explained and justified the proposed change, by reference to policy - wp:commonname - and to evidence in respect of that, eg by encyclopedia, profile, media etc usage. See proposal and discussion. The ball is in the opposers' court, as the cliche has it, and none of them have presented any counter-evidence or policy-based argument whatsoever but have relied simply on randomly citing irrelevant points about other articles, daft - and incorrect - observations about common names for other places, obscure political obfuscation and tangential "what ifs". When you're reduced to asking "why should our naming policy apply to the naming of articles" it's really time to give up and go home. Thank you. N-HH talk/edits 17:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"United States" instead of "USA" or "United Kingdom" instead of "Britain" is plenty proof that WP:COMMONNAME is not something that is and should be applied with the strict sense that "You guys" are applying to this article. This article can remain "Republic of China" or even "ROC". "Republic of China" can and should be allowed as much as "United States" or "United Kingdom". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See previous answer re irrelevant tangents, incorrect and unevidenced assertions etc etc. N-HH talk/edits 18:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The basis of your whole argument is WP:COMMONNAME, how is my discussing the relevancy of WP:COMMONNAME to this article irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See previous answers re "When you're reduced to asking "why should our naming policy apply to the naming of articles" it's really time to give up and go home"; and re "daft - and incorrect - observations about common names for other places". Beyond that, wp:deny, I think. N-HH talk/edits 18:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that our naming policy ISN'T applying to the naming of ALL articles (US,UK) and therefore not a reliable policy. Given its unreliability, perhaps the policy itself needs to be examined in terms of applicability to this specific article. Read that again, let me know if you have any questions about my argument itself, not on who is making it and whether or not I should "go home." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"United States" and "United Kingdom" are common short-form names (albeit that there are others in those cases) so your argument that common name is not being applied there rather obviously falls at the first hurdle. If you think otherwise, go to those pages to raise the supposed problem and stop boring everyone here. Our policy is both reliable and being applied fairly consistently - as well as being, er, policy. If, however, you wish to contest it, there's a separate talk page for that too (not that I'm encouraging you to troll there as well). If you really do not understand any of this (and I suspect you do), then I suggest you seek help. N-HH talk/edits 19:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to move this article to Taiwan, which can cease the disambiguation and is much easier to find the article in this way.68.227.252.40 (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The citizens of Taiwan can call the country whatever they want in the Chinese-language Wikipedia. But English speakers are looking for "Taiwan" and that's what we need to call the article in the English-language Wikipedia." - On Wikipedia there should be no language barrier to human knowledge, Taivo. I speak English as my first language (although I can read some Chinese) I don't agree that Wikipedia should be a hegemony of native English speakers. We cannot disregard people who speak English as a second language. 202.189.98.135 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just don't get the issue here. It's simple. Taiwan is called "Taiwan" by the majority of English speakers and in the majority of English-language publications. That's all the matters. The name most commonly used is "Taiwan" and that's what Wikipedia policy (WP:COMMONNAME) dictates will be used. No complex arguments about hurt feelings or anything else matter. The country is called "Taiwan" by the great majority of English speakers, so that's its name. --Taivo (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is international and language should not be a barrier to human knowledge. The hard fact is that even in English "Taiwan" isn't strictly speaking a reference to this country. It's alright for loose usage, but not so for an encyclopaedia entry. 202.189.98.140 (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why practically every other encyclopedia uses "Taiwan" as title? I really would like to know. mgeo talk 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other encyclopaedias have entries for the countries under the titles Ireland, Macedonia, and even Micronesia. All these aren't accepted on Wikipedia. Why? I really would like to know too. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland, Macedonia and Micronesia are islands or regions that span several countries. The island of Taiwan is administered by one country only, like Cuba, Iceland, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Jamaica etc. Do you have other more relevant examples? mgeo talk 22:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are similar in the sense that the different concepts don't overlap geographically. Whether the region or the country is larger is irrelevant. Madagascar, Jamaica, Cuba, Iceland and Sri Lanka aren't comparable. They don't have other islands or regions like UK's Northern Ireland, Tasmania's Macquarie Island, Bahrain's Hawar Islands, or ROC's Fujianese and South China Sea islands. Other examples that had been mentioned in this page are Bosnia, Antigua, Newfoundland, Trinidad, etc. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.o "Madagascar, Jamaica, Cuba, Iceland and Sri Lanka...don't have other islands"??? CMD (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They do. But all those islands are geographically related. None of them is like Hawar Islands, Kinmen, Matsu Islands, Pratas Islands, Itu Aba, or Macquarie Island. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cited many examples (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Antigua and Barbuda, Newfoundland and Labrador...) but all these titles can be found in other encyclopedias and they seem to follow our common name policy pretty well, unlike "Republic of China". So the question remains: why couldn't we use "Taiwan" as the title of this article when practically every other encyclopedia does? mgeo talk 23:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Geographically related"? 1. Subjective concept. 2. Has no bearing on country names whatsoever. CMD (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Mgeo. But then Ireland, Micronesia and Macedonia are accepted by Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, as the titles for the articles on these countries. These titles aren't accepted by Wikipedia. "Geographically related" isn't quite subjective from the geography perspectives, CMD. (E.g. No one would consider Hawaii to be part of North America or French Guiana to be part of Europe.) It has no immediate bearing on country names but it usually does (E.g. "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in UK's full name [or "United Kingdom" preferred over "Great Britain"], Newfoundland and Labrador, Trinidad and Tobago, etc.). And it also suggests that separate articles are normally needed, one each for the geographical entity and for the political entity. Bahrain Island, Newfoundland, Trinidad, Great Britain are such examples. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with N-HH. When your sole argument is "Wikipedia policy should not apply to us", then you have zero argument. The majority of opinion is in favor of moving. The policy argument (WP:COMMONNAME) is sound. The evidence is compelling. In opposition to the move is only WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a weak WP:OTHERSTUFF. Neither of these policies is an argument to counter WP:COMMONNAME, which is definitive in this situation. Indeed, the WP:COMMONNAME argument is even stronger because the only real exception is when it causes ambiguity. In this case the real ambiguity problem is between "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China". Those names are nearly identical and should be clearly disambiguated by Wikipedia policy and practice. So this move of "Republic of China" to "Taiwan" actually reduces ambiguity between two countries that are similarly named. Of course, if that were the only argument, it would be a weak one, but in combination with the absolutely rock-solid policy of WP:COMMONNAME and the evidence gathered here, the move is simply too well-motivated to reasonably oppose. There simply is no valid policy-based Wikipedia argument against this move. --Taivo (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does it reduce ambiguity. But it solves the problem of why a PRC article no longer exist, but a ROC still does. On top of that, it gives editors an opportunity to focus on a "ROC (1912-1949)" era article, and leave the modern stuff as Taiwan article. Benjwong (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such titles only exist if the titles have to be disambiguated, like the currently existing Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo that existed between 1960 and 1971, or Jin Dynasty (265–420) and Jin Dynasty (1115–1234). In the case of the ROC, it's all about the same entity, before and after 1949. If there's something wrong with the title of the PRC article, go fix that article instead. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ben that the names PRC and ROC reduces ambiguity. Great Britain is indeed a common name of the UK, though far less common than Taiwan is to the ROC. For instance, the British team to Olympic Games is known as GBR. Northern Ireland, like ROC's remote islands, isn't significant with respect to the UK in terms of population or economic output. It's significant simply because English speakers know about it. But we cannot disregard the Fujianese and South China Sea islands of the ROC or the pre-1955 history of the ROC just because English speakers don't know and don't care. Iceland, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Madagascar aren't comparable, because none of these countries has any landmass geographically unrelated to their main islands. Comparable cases should be Macquarie Island to the island of Tasmania, Labrador to the island of Newfoundland, and Okinotori-shima to the Japanese archipelago. 202.189.98.135 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there would be any issue with using "Great Britain" if it was used more commonly. It would be short for "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue here is that the name "Taiwan" has been proven to be the common name of the country among English speakers. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME, that is the name to be applied to the country in Wikipedia. It's a simple matter and not one single valid argument has been put forward to the contrary. The opposition to the move only continues to repeat ad nauseum WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not convincing. --Taivo (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This entry is about everything of this country. But "Taiwan" isn't the common name for everything about this country. For example, this article discusses the history of this country in the 1960s and 1970s. By then "Taiwan" isn't its common name. Further, from what I read, it has been people like you who continue to repeat ad nauseum the single not-so-valid argument and oppose the long established arrangement because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". 202.189.98.140 (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you need to actually read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That policy clearly states exactly what you and the rest of the opposition have been arguing--without any facts or logic at all, simply arguing that Taiwan isn't "Taiwan" because it would "offend" the Chinese inhabitants of Taiwan (there are other Taiwanese, of course). You have no facts to support your argument, unlike the supporters who have presented quite convincing and sufficient evidence that the most common name of Taiwan in English is "Taiwan". All the opposition has is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nothing more. And, yes, "Taiwan" is, indeed, the most common name for everything about your country. --Taivo (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you and many other editors refuse to understand the differences between Taiwan and the ROC, the scope of the article on the ROC, and the need for disambiguation. ""Taiwan" is, indeed, the most common name for everything about your country." This is getting personal. But, no, I am not from Taiwan. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about Holland for the Netherlands, Trinidad for Trinidad and Tobago, or Bosnia for Bosnia and Herzegovina? Yes Great Britain isn't as common as Taiwan, but still it's adequately common. 202.189.98.140 (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but the answer is too simple: Those articles are all consistent with WP:COMMONNAME, while the ROC / Taiwan situation is not. Hence the move request. Mlm42 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We got articles located at Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia, and Federated States of Micronesia. Why aren't they named Ireland (country), Macedonia (country) and Micronesia (country), like Georgia (country)?
Georgia has no long name or official description, but is not considered the primary topic. CMD (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are ROI, ROM and FSM common names of these countries? If Georgia had a long name or an official description, what should be title of its article? The long name/official description? Or Georgia (country)? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a more detailed explanation of those article title choices, please see the talk pages of those articles. This is not the place to discuss those. Mlm42 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not discussing the choice of those titles. I am talking about guidance from similar cases. Please don't evade the question. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Georgia had a longform name, I suspect that would be its title. However, none of these are similar cases. CMD (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, if long forms shall be used, what makes Taiwan so different? In my opinion the case is even stronger for the ROC since Taiwan wasn't part of this country. Second, all these cases are similar: Common names are not used. Official long names (or official description in the case of Ireland) are used instead. Kosovo is similar too, that the article for the country is located not under its common name but at Republic of Kosovo. (It claims the whole Kosovo but doesn't control North Kosovo. It effectively exists only within the rest of Kosovo.) 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In all those cases, the discussions were guided almost completely by the ideas expressed in the policy WP:COMMONNAME. We are trying to do the same here. If you want to learn more about the specific cases you mention, then you should look at their talk page archives. Cheers, Mlm42 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the discussions were guided almost completely by the ideas expressed in the policy WP:COMMONNAME." Yes perhaps. But the outcome is that common names aren't used as the titles of these articles. "If you want to learn more about the specific cases you mention, then you should look at their talk page archives." Thanks for your advice. But no I don't want to learn "more" about them. I know enough already. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, anon IP, you know nothing about them or else you wouldn't be calling them as evidence here. All these instances are different and have different histories. And WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in Wikipedia. So you have only two arguments here: WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's it. You have no valid argument whatsoever to counter the unequivocal WP:COMMONNAME argument being made here--that the common name of Taiwan in English is "Taiwan". Period. You and all the other opposition have absolutely no valid argument that follows Wikipedia policy. --Taivo (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Please convince me by explaining your version to me as to why the article about the country Ireland isn't having its common name "Ireland" as its title (and Macedonia, Micronesia, Kosovo, etc., too), and why those cases don't apply here. Please don't continue your IDONTLIKEIT approach, and apply the common name approach while disregarding logical, reasonable and established exceptions. Thanks. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF, and therefore irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish precedence is mentioned extensively in ArbCom Macedonia 2. Further, the move from PRC to China was also cited to restart the discussion for Republic of Ireland -> Ireland. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This has been explained before, and as HiLo48 says, not that important, but I'll explain (again) anyway. Ireland has another prominent meaning, the island as a whole. This meaning is more expansive, and it was determined in huge realms of discussions that it was the primary topic in literature. Thus, it is at Ireland, being the primary topic, while the country is disambiguated to its official description. Macedonia is also a Greek province, but primarily a historical area which included a state which lead to an Empire. It has been determined there is no primary topic, so the country is disambiguated to its official name. Micronesia is a more expansive region than the country, and a convincing case has not been made that the country is the primary topic, hence it is also at its official name (ala Ireland). Kosovo used to be a page on the country, but a deadlocked discussion lead some users to shift it (without, in my opinion, consensus) all to a Republic page claiming the region was a more expansive topic, especially as a portion of it isn't controlled by the Republic. Basically they all have a name that has to be disambiguated and weren't the primary topic. On the other hand, there don't seem to be many cases where Taiwan is used that separates the island from the country, and huge piles of cases where it is used for the country. CMD (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because many editors are more familiar with the differences between the island Ireland and the country Ireland. The same is true for the differences between the Macedonia empire and the modern country with that name. In comparison the differences between the island Taiwan and the country You-know-what is ignored by editors like you and HiLo48. The differences between the subset of the ROC since 1945 and the republic founded in 1912 is basically unknown and disregarded by these editors. This is systemic bias and what I called hegemony of English native speakers.
Regarding Micronesia, I have fixed a large number of wrong links to Micronesia just now.[35] Some are even having piped links like [[Micronesia|Federated States of Micronesia]]. Even articles like History of United States diplomatic relations by country, Embassy of the Federated States of Micronesia in Washington, D.C., Lists of country-related topics, International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Foreign relations of the Philippines, and International Maritime Organization got it wrong. Just that this remote country got little attention from Wikipedia editors, not to mention to challenge the existing arrangement. As a matter of fact, the country's article on Encyclopaedia Britannica is under the title "Micronesia". 202.189.98.131 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably more familiar with the Republic of China than the Republic of Ireland or the Republic of Macedonia. We don't ignore the differences, that's just a pointless ad hominem, which assures me future discussion here won't be productive. CMD (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I didn't mean to ad hominem. That's my general feeling towards the majority of the editors here. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As HiLo48 states, that is simply another irrelevant instance of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The only valid argument here to counter WP:COMMONNAME is to demonstrate that "Taiwan" is not the most common name in English of Taiwan or to demonstrate that the majority of users search for it by typing "Republic of China" or "China" in the search box instead of "Taiwan". That is the only way you can counter the WP:COMMONNAME policy. The other examples are strawmen because each of them already includes the name of the country, thus "Republic of Macedonia" includes the word "Macedonia", which is the common name. But there is also a province of Greece named "Macedonia" and an ancient kingdom named "Macedonia", so disambiguation was necessary. But that isn't relevant at all to Taiwan since "Republic of China" does not include the word "Taiwan", which is the most common used name for Taiwan in English. So you have simply listed irrelevant red herrings as irrelevant examples of WP:OTHERSTUFF. And, sir or madam, you are simply wrong in our argument here. It is you who are trying to use WP:IDONTLIKEIT to support your opposition to the move. The move to Taiwan is amply supported and evidenced by WP:COMMONNAME. Support for the move is based on sound Wikipedia policy. It is you who have no argument other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which are not valid arguments in a move request. --Taivo (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't me who introduce such a name that does not include the word "Taiwan". It's the politicians and the course of history who did it. If one understands the background of both Taiwan and the ROC, and the differences between the two, any reasonable person would have concluded that "ROC" is perhaps the only name that is able to encompass all aspects of this country. If ROC isn't a common name at all, the same is true for ROI, FSM and ROM. All these are basically unheard. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you haven't read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Every sentence you have written about Ireland, Macedonia, etc. is irrelevant here. Indeed, I was involved in the ARBMAC2 so your characterization of the use of Ireland there is a misreading of what happened and shows that you clearly do not understand how irrelevant it was. Macedonia's resolution was based entirely on issues related to Macedonia and WP:OTHERSTUFF had zero influence on the discussion and on the final decision. Same is true for all the other cases you've cited. WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant. Yes, someone almost always tries to use it in arguments, but it never has any effect. This is the same situation. Other stuff is irrelevant and will be ignored. You are simply trying any wikilawyering trick you can in order to bolster your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Indeed, you're hovering on a clear example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are simply ignoring the evidence. The evidence is perfectly clear that English speakers call Taiwan "Taiwan". This encyclopedia isn't for your personal preference. It's for English speakers to use to find stuff. And when English speakers are looking for Taiwan, they expect to find Taiwan. You have presented not one single, solitary shred of evidence that WP:COMMONNAME should not apply here. --Taivo (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very heated discussion that wasn't going anywhere (and led to an IP block)

If this article is changed into Taiwan, then other articles, such as those on the Second Sino Japanese War, the Chinese civil war, articles on warlords in Republican china and wars fought in Republican china, will have a link titled "Republic of China", but redirecting to an article called "Taiwan", which would be entirely innapropiate. Imagine someone reading an article on the Second Sino-Japanese War, Yuan Shikai, or Central Plains War, clicking on "Republic of China", and finding themselves on "Taiwan".

Interwiki links will also be screwed. The arabic wikipedia, for instance, has two separate articles, one of them is the Republic of China (Jumhuriya As-Sin), the other is Taiwan (Taywan). If this ROC article is moved to Taiwan, then what do the interwiki links on other wikis do? What would the interwiki links on this article be? Taiwan or ROC?Niyaendi (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a real issue then we can make "Republic of China" a redirect page.
Additionally I would expect that the number of people affected will be so small that it isn't worth worrying about. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If this is a real issue then we can make "Republic of China" a redirect page." - I'm not sure if you got any problem with English. What Niyaendi suggested was that it won't be correct to link "Republic of China" as appears in articles like Second Sino-Japanese War (in case you aren't familiar: Taiwan was then a Japanese colony and therefore part of the Japanese Empire) to [[Republic of China]] because it will be redirected to "Taiwan". Many readers will be affected. This is severely underestimated on this talk page because most of the audience here don't edit much about the ROC and Taiwan. They aren't familiar at all with this topic. 202.189.98.140 (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever will we do? :( If only the Republic of China (1912–1949) article existed... CMD (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would a casual reader know that Taiwan and that article are linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is that at all relevant to the question of bad wikilinks? (and the answer is through the prose, this being an encyclopaedia) CMD (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that we should divert some of the links to Republic of China (1912-1949), Chip? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting it, but they should be, yes. CMD (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "Whatever will we do?"? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the question posed, to which I provided a solution. CMD (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The interwiki links can and will be fixed after any page moves. Most of it is automatically done by bots, so requires little human intervention, though there are many editors that help too. As for links there are now many links that looks like this [[Republic of China|Taiwan]], because 'Taiwan' is the common name and so used in many articles. If the page is moved these will become much more accurate and clearer.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such an operation cannot be accomplished by bots. Human input is a must. It's going to be huge, and in many cases it isn't easy to decide. 202.189.98.140 (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just fix it. Right now, because Taiwan IS the common name, there are probably hundreds of uses of that name to reference the country even within Wikipedia. I encountered two myself by accident just the other day. One was ANZUS, the other was on one of the Reference Desks, discussing possible fashion differences between China and Taiwan, using simply those names. Nobody had any concerns about the name. So, the ROC campaigners have an awful lot of work to do to make the current name of this article make sense across all of Wikipedia. Which way to move? (As if it isn't bloody obvious.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Right now, because Taiwan IS the common name" Shall we rename the Sino-American Mutual Defence Treaty as the Taiwan-American Mutual Defence Treaty? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yay, more irrelevance. That treaty has its commonname, the country has another. The two articles are unrelated. CMD (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it logical to call a treaty between "Taiwan" and the United States with a prefix of another country? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the treaty has a name, yes. CMD (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a few more, which took very little effort to find, suggesting that there are thousands of others...
So, there we have both massive evidence of the common usage behind this proposed move, and a big problem for those who don't like it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Who edited MY post above? It was perfectly legible the way it was. There is too much messing around with others' comments going on here, almost all by those fucking anonymous IP editors. Fucking stop it!!!!!!!) HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Indentation, and how Eraserhead1 and John Smith did it to Niyaendi's comment at 04:35, 4 March 2012. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason is that there is no McDonald's restaurant anywhere in the ROC outside Taiwan. And there is no CPBL team outside Taiwan. All teams are from within Taiwan and all matches are played within Taiwan. In many other cases, the involvement of the rest of the ROC is not quite relevant or too insignificant.
Further, in some of the cases, the topics are only about Taiwan as a subset of the ROC, e.g., the railway system of Taiwan, the highway numbering system of Taiwan, in the same manner as Great Britain, which is a subset of the UK and different systems are in place in Northern Ireland (see Rail transport in Great Britain and Great Britain road numbering scheme). If we rename these articles it will be like disregarding Northern Ireland.
(The CPBL example here is interesting too, since it uses the word "Chinese" to refer to the country. Other similar cases include China Airlines, Chunghwa Telecom, Chunghwa Post, China Television, Chinese Television System, Chinese Association for Human Rights, Chinese Catholic University Student Association, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research, and the Chinese National Federation of Industries.) 202.189.98.131 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've tried all these irrelevant tangents and this convoluted personal analysis of what supposedly means or implies what before. I am sure this as boring for you as it is for everyone else. This quasi-country based around the island of Taiwan is known as "Taiwan" in 2012 by every other serious, authoritative source - which all also happily cope with any complexity or contradition inherent in the topic as a whole. That is all we need to know or discuss. Other articles - from China Airlines to History of the Republic of China - are other articles; and for the most part seem correctly named. This one is not. N-HH talk/edits 18:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly a need to differentiate the country and that particular island - under whatever article titles. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which can be done in text, when necessary, in exactly the same way as other sources do it for Taiwan, and the same way we do it for every other island nation - by referring to the the "main island" or "the island of Taiwan"; or by using phrases such as on Taiwan rather than in Taiwan etc etc. All rather easy, and the rest of the world seems to cope. Whether we also need a "Taiwan (island)" article about that main island, separatefrom and additional to this one, is a debatable point given that it represents 99% of the territory in focus here (and, in any event, that suggestion does form a secondary part of this proposal I believe). N-HH talk/edits 18:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are countries named Trinidad and Tobago, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Kitts and Nevis, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as states and provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, North Rhine-Westphalia, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. In some of these cases, part of the names serve as their common names, e.g., Trinidad, Pitcairn, Antigua, Bosnia, Newfoundland, Andaman. The designation of the ROC in the WTO is (Separate Customs Territory of) Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. In my opinion there's a need to have separate articles on the country and on that particular island. Further, Taiwan isn't a reasonable name to refer to anything about this country before the 1980s, and, in particular, before the 1950s. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still not interested in long lists of other places/articles. The point about anachronism and context when using any term - including Tawian - is well understood, both on WP and in the real world, among those with functioning intelligence. Nor is it relevant to what we call this article now, in 2012. N-HH talk/edits 19:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Nor is it relevant to what we call this article now, in 2012." Are we going to discuss in the article anything that happened before 2012? No? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to discuss anything that happened after the 1970s? CMD (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I suppose the prose can adapt either way then. CMD (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it logical to call the ROC "Taiwan" for anything that happened before the 1970s or even before the 1950s? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the situation I suppose. Good thing no-one is proposing editing the history to do that, making the question pointless. CMD (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Good thing no-one is proposing editing the history.." I'm afraid that's exactly what this move request is proposing to do. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. No-one wants to go and change all "Republic of China" wordings to "Taiwan", and no-one has suggested it. That's purely imaginative speculation. CMD (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you already equate Taiwan and the Republic of China with such a title to this article, an article which discusses the ROC from its founding in 1912 through the post-Second World War era to the contemporary years. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The world equates them. Note how it's the article that discusses it, not the title. CMD (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point, again. None of those articles differentiated. They did not make it clear whether they were talking about the country, the island, the province or whatever. YOU only know about some of them because you already knew. But this is an encyclopaedia for the whole English speaking world. People who don't already know, but do use the term Taiwan to refer to the whole country. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(THE POST ABOVE IS NOT WHERE I PUT IT. 202.189.98.131 FUCKING MOVED IT, DESPITE ME ASKING HIM NOT TO DO SUCH THINGS. I CANNOT MOVE IT BACK DUE TO OTHER CHANGES. HE IS AN ARROGANT VANDAL WHO SHOULD BE BLOCKED NOW FOR HIS DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" None of those articles differentiated. They did not make it clear whether they were talking about the country, the island, the province or whatever." "People who don't already know, but do use the term Taiwan to refer to the whole country." Well if those articles aren't already clear enough for people like you, we should work harder to clarify them. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

202.189.98.131 - What the fuck do you think you are doing?

You moved my post and a couple of others away from the posts to which they were responding. You have completely destroyed that conversation. I tried reverting, but there have been too many changes since to separate that move from the resulting mess you created. Please learn some bloody manners here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Could you provide the diff links? Perhaps I can help fix it. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[36] CMD (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If you are talking about your reply to Niyaendi at 04:03, 5 March 2012: Yes. That's what I did. Your reply came after Eraserhead1's at 10:54, 4 March 2012 and John Smith's at 12:40, 4 March 2012. Chronological order should be followed. As far as I know that's the practice on all Wikipedia talk pages. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what fucking rules you think should be fucking followed. You destroyed a fucking conversation. In addition, you are an anonymous fucking editor who could be another fucking IP address next time you fucking log on, who can't remember to sign his fucking posts. You have none of my respect! HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know well then. Wikipedia talk page practises are loose, and HiLo48 followed a common convention of placing edits immediately after the post they were replying to. On the other hand, without a good reason you shouldn't shift edits. CMD (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it's more desirable to follow the general rule in this talk page, that is, the chronological rule. It's even more desirable to do so since both Eraserhead1 and John Smith had already replied Niyaendi's comment by the chronological rule. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no chronological rule. CMD (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I observe, there is. Would some administrators help clarify, please? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The real point is that you destroyed a conversation. How does that help this page? I guess if you're opposed to my opinion it helps you push yours, but that just reinforces the point that conversation here is almost pointless, at least partly because of irrational, politically motivated IP editors who don't sign their posts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't destroy any conversation. I keep them arranged by the same chronological order. It reinforces better presentation of arguments of both sides, and facilitate better discussions. Meanwhile I sign every single piece of comment with four tildes. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My post is no longer immediately after the post to which I was responding. It now makes no sense. If you think that's OK, you're insane. (And yes, I know this post is not in chronological order, but I hope you can see how moving it would really stuff things up!) HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your observation in the one talkpage you've actually had a discussion in, where you have been editing to create that rule? CMD (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From Eraserhead1's and John Smith's comments, and from other talk pages that I had previously read or edited. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you persist, despite this conversation. CMD (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what the fuck? You did it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (In Interwiki links complications) After this conversation!!!!!!!!! And again it can't be easily reverted. Your behaviour is effectively vandalism. STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


OK. Sanity may be about to prevail. 202.189.98.131 reported me at WP:ANI for my bad language (without telling me!), and the subsequent discussion has led to him being told both there and on his Talk page that his behaviour was unacceptable. He seems to have given up for now, but we are still left with a mess. Several threads up above have been screwed up by his actions, all of which impacted on the posts of people on the other side of the debate from him. To any administrator looking at this, firstly, my sympathies, and secondly, be aware that a lot of the seemingly illogical discussion is the result of what was effectively vandalism by opponents of this Move request, some of it AFTER being told to stop. If anyone thinks they can repair the damage, please go for it. I tried, and failed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

202.189.98.131 has been temporarily blocked. Things should be a bit saner around here for a bit. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: Alternative proposals

{{requested move}} Over the course of the discussions above several alternative proposals have been put forward by various editors. To facilitate better discussion on each of these proposals I have spelt them out below. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These proposals can be looked at after the current proposal is finished. The RM system doesn't support multiple requests open at once and there's no purpose in distracting people from the currently running discussion. When the current proposal is completed, and if it fails, other proposals can be addressed on an individual basis and one at a time. I won't participate until that time. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 09:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[37] Do not modify my edits. If the tag shouldn't be added here, strike it out, explain why, and sign your rationale. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly explained why it was removed above: "The RM system doesn't support multiple requests open at once". I'm looking at the end of that line, and I can see my signature there plain as day, thus my rationale is also signed. Your edit introduced a problem that would disrupt the operation of the RM bot, by providing it with a page that renders it difficult to read for that bot. This is a valid reason to alter another editor's comment under 'fixing format errors' in WP:TPO. The difference between removing and TLing the template is negligible and I have no problem with you keeping it there as a TL if you so desire. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 10:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal 1

(Proposed by Liam987 and supported by 210.17.196.24 and TuckerResearch)

Responses

Discussions

Alternative proposal 2

  • Merge all content in the existing article at Taiwan into this article and move the product over to Taiwan.

(Proposed by Kanguole (inaccurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanguole (talk • contribs) 09:32, 13 March 2012 [38] and supported by LukeSurl)

Responses

Discussions

Alternative proposal 3

(Proposed by 111.251.198.139)

Responses

Discussions

Alternative proposal 4

(Proposed by C933103, and favoured by RevelationDirect as an alternative)

Responses

Discussions

Objection over downgrading a section header to bold text

User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick, the new registered account of the Hong Kong university IP addresses previously participating on this page, has objected to the downgrade of HiLo48's section header in the collapsed area titled '202.189.98.131 - What the fuck do you think you are doing?'. Mlm42 downgraded this to simple bold text when introducing the collapse box so that it would not appear in the table of contents at the top of the page any more. I agree with Mlm42's reasoning and believe that this section header remaining visible in the TOC pointlessly adds fuel to the fire. However, Jeffrey reinstated the section header and when it was reverted, objected on my talk page here. I have restored the section header for now, but would like to establish consensus (or consent from HiLo48, the author of the title in question) that it can be downgraded to bold and removed from the TOC. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 10:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"..has objected to the downgrade of HiLo48's section header.." Null is once again putting his own thoughts into my mouth. I did not object it. I only requested Null to stick with what he lectured me: Not to refactor or alter other people's comments. It was indeed HiLo48's intention to have a separate section header.[39][40] 202.189.98.132 (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again? This is the first time I've spoken about you, Jeffrey, but don't let sympathetic exaggeration stop you. I didn't refactor his comment, I reverted your change. The difference is plain, and no amount of you trying to point fingers changes the facts. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 10:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. It's the first time that you talked about me here at Talk:Republic of China, Null. You previously did that elsewhere. HiLo48's section header was effectively refactored for the second time when you reverted it to Mlm42's version. "I reverted your change" No I didn't removed his section header. My change? What I did was to undo Mlm32's changes. 202.189.98.132 (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you confirm with either of the editors involved that consent to make the change didn't already exist? You were blocked just recently for disruptive talk page refactoring, I strongly urge you not to return to that behaviour again. Your first block should have been a clear signal that you do not understand the rules involved as well as you think you do. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 10:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&oldid=481663836"