Talk:Taiwan

English variety: non-consensual changes

I intend to cancel this edit because of the decision made at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Taiwan#RfC on English variety and date format in Taiwan-related articles, where the result of the RFC was:

"Closure was requested at WP:ANRFC, and the discussion is stale. Reading through it, I adopt the "Closing statement (WIP)" that was written by Szqecs There is consensus to prefer no particular style. Where there is dispute, the principles of MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET should be followed. No consensus on the exact implementation of these guidelines."

--BushelCandle (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, this first edit that "corrected" spelling in the article in July 2003 used the non-US spelling of "favour" while <joke mode on> retaining the existing non-US spelling of "traitorous" <joke mode off>. Since Taiwan is not classed as an "English-speaking" country, consequently this article can not have what Wikipedia policy terms as "strong national ties" to a variety of English and, instead, MOS:RETAIN rules: non-US English should be used consistently throughout this article (except for direct quotations, of course).--BushelCandle (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The same editor used Oxford English spelling when, a few minutes later, this passage was introduced: "The Republic of China continues to be officially recognized (rather than "recognised") by 27 nations, mostly small countries in Central America and Africa but also including the Holy See. The People's Republic of China has a policy of not having diplomatic relations with any nation which recognizes (rather than "recognises") the Republic of China and insists that all nations with which it has diplomatic relations make a statement which recognizes (rather than "recognised") its claims on Taiwan." --BushelCandle (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There was consensus about a year ago to use American style English in this Taiwan article since Taiwan teaches Mandarin and American English in all its schools. The date style format did not have consensus one way since Taiwan uses an oddball style of dates. And "recognize" is the American English variety. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I rather assumed that would be the case. However, I did search the archives and did not find anything that would help me. (The section at Talk:Taiwan/Archive_28#Spelling did not reach a clear consensus, so since Taiwan is neither obviously an English speaking nation, nor with a substantial minority speaking a specific national version of English, I used our usual tiebreaker of original version, as outlined above.) Consequently I then fell back on our generic policies as I summarised above.

You do realise that as well as "recognize" being the way Americans spell, it is also correct in the Oxford English spelling variety - a subset of Commonwealth or British English?

Can you provide a diff for the consensus you write about, please? --BushelCandle (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

But "Recognise" is the Commonwealth spelling that is usually attributed to British English. That Spelling section DID reach a consensus that American English should be used. The article has many intermingled varieties, which is bad, and it's why we should err on the the English variety that the country itself uses. It tennis articles we use the variety of English the individual players use, and I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same here. There are spellings of program, neighborhood, labor, and center (American English spellings)... along with counterpart British spellings. A mish-mash. With a mish-mash, if we are going to use a particular variety it should be what the country itself uses and teaches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I note that you have not provided a diff to the spelling consensus that you wrote about above and that I asked you to provide.

The way that things should go according to policy is as follows:

a) Taiwan is not an Anglophone nation so no particular variety of English is prescribed (see also RfC on English variety and date format in Taiwan-related articles right at the beginning of this section)

b) It is established policy that there should NOT be a "mish-mash" of spellings within the body text of any one article

c) The consequences of considering (a) and (b) together is that we now need to pick a variety of English, label the picked variety on this article and this, that article's talk page using the appropriate template and then make sure that the article is kept consistent with that variety. If anyone opposes this simple and logical conclusion then please speak now or forever hold thy peace!

d) Unless we can reach a clear local consensus (not yet reached, as the Rfc conclusively demonstrated) then the variety of English is decided by choosing to "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety."

e) Unfortunately (from a strictly personal point of view, since I personally am rather uncomfortable using Oxford English), those first post-stub revisions (by the same editor) used Oxford English and consequently, without a clear local consensus to use a different variety, means that it is Oxford English that is the de jure variety for this article.

However, we can console ourselves with the knowledge that it is that Oxford variety of English that is officially or de facto used in the style guides of the international organizations that belong to the United Nations System that Taiwan is intent on remaining part of (or rejoining) such as the World Health Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, the International Labour Organization, the World Food Programme, the International Court of Justice, and UNESCO, together with all UN treaties and declarations, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Other international organizations that adhere to this standard are also important to Taiwan and include the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Interpol, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International and the World Economic Forum --BushelCandle (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Even A is really incorrect. In 2019 Taiwan will have two official languages and one of them is the American style English taught in schools. With it being their language of choice it's what should be used here. Things should not be changed into a language they don't use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That discussion had no consensus, so use whatever spelling you like but don't change existing spellings from one to another. Ythlev (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It did, but per your statement we should continue to use all types of spellings in the article? If so, you should practice what you preach since you changed urbanize to urbanise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That word was first spelled 'urbanised', changed by another user. Ythlev (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is partly because "spelling wars" can waste a great deal of editor time and attention and lead to non-collegial feelings proliferating that we need to stick to Wikipedia's established policies until and unless a clear local consensus develops to consistently use a different variety than Oxford English.--BushelCandle (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In 2018 a user started laterally changing the American English to British English in this particular article. That was why we had consensus in a discussion to make him stop, and we reverted it back. That time period is where we should be looking since this article has been written and re-written many times since it was created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And now that I look at user Ythlev and his aliases of (Szqecs and Szqecs1), he was the user that was causing all the problems. Looks like hes back with a new moniker! Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It really would help move matters forward if you would respond directly to the points raised in this discussion. To make this easier for you I will ask you a series of direct questions:

[A] What is the diff of this 2018 discussion that reached a clear spelling consensus? (If there wasn't one or you can't locate it then please say that clearly)

[B] Do you think this article should have a "mish-mash" or mixture of English varieties and date formats? (Yes or no, please.)

[C] Do you believe that this version of our article has, in the main, a consistent variety of English and date format? ie Oxford English and D-M-Y. (Yes or no, please.)--BushelCandle (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A - It's in the July 2018 archives, B - No, C - No . Per the last discussion if any consistent form is to be used it should be American style English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Causing all the problems? I left the spellings alone since then and now another user disagrees with using American. Are you going to say this user is also my alt? I told you before there is no consensus for your strong ties BS. Ythlev (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Last year you were a big problem, enough that we had to have a discussion on it and multiple editors had to revert all your changes. This time it was only once that I noticed so no problem, but I had no idea until my last post that I was dealing with the same editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

My stance is simple:

I believe that within the body text of this article there should be a consistent variety of English used and, in the absence of a clear local consensus to favour a different variety, that variety of English should be the ORIGINAL, 2003 variety of Oxford English (in conformance with official policy and unfortunately, in view of the local Taiwanese preference for US spelling). --BushelCandle (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Official policy?" Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I made that same point before but Fyunck(click) wouldn't have it. So for the sake of avoiding an edit war, just leave the spellings be. Ythlev (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You made 100s if not 1000s of non-consensus changes to dozens of Taiwan related pages last time, that had to be reverted by multiple editors, not just me. You convinced me that, even though Taiwan rarely uses dmy date format, to leave that alone. So I did. But it was against consensus to try and change everything to British English. Consensus was that if anything this article was to be in American English. In 2019 Taiwan will have two official languages, one of them being English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't care what your interpretation of the previous discussion results is because it is clear now that not everyone buys your strong ties BS. Ythlev (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: It appears you are rather keen on making the variety consistent. In this case I support unifying to British English with Oxford spelling. Ythlev (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): If you have nothing else to say on this matter but still keep reverting changes, you are disruptive editing. Ythlev (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? What would you like me to say that I haven't already explained? You have disrupted so many times in the past that my head was spinning back then. But that was with all your other aliases and I assume you have changed your ways from forcing changes against the last consensus here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Before the editor Szqecs|Szqecs1 rampage of 2018 (which an administrator had to step in to stop), this is how the article handled it English variety:

Word	British occurrences	US occurrences	Comments
authorised/authorized	0	1
behaviour/behavior	1	0
colour/color	1	0
centre/center	3	5	"center" appears another 9 times in non-Taiwanese proper names and citations
characterised/characterized	0	1
criticised/criticized	0	3
defence/defense	9	4	"defense" appears another 9 times in non-Taiwanese proper names and citations
democratis-/democratiz-	0	7
formalised/formalized	0	1
industrialise/industrialisation/industrialize/industrialization	0	5
labour/labor	2	3
labourer/laborer	1	1
liberalis-/liberaliz-	0	2
metre/millilmetre/kilometre/meter/millimeter/kilometer	3	0
neighbour/neighbor	2	3
organised/organization/organized/organization	0	10	there are another 12 instances of "Organization" in proper names
programme/program	0	9	"programme" appears once in reference to a non-Taiwanese proper name: Programme for International Student Assessment
polarised/polarized	0	2
privatis-/privatiz-	0	2
publicised/publicized	0	1
recognis-/recogniz-	0	8	I did not count two instances of "recognised" in the infobox field labels
sinicise/sinicisation/sinicize/sinicization	0	2
stabilis-/stabiliz-	0	3
theatre/theater	1	0
Total	23	74

This is another reason consensus was set for American styled English as the article was overwhelmingly done in American English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), I'd like to point out that ize/ization spellings are perfectly valid in British English, so their use should not necessarily be treated as US English. Adam9007 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a lot of edit warring following a drive-by tagging. Irrespective of what form of English spelling this article was used, it's disappointing to see that edits moving towards commonality (replacing urbanized with built-up) were reverted. CMD (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I brought it up at ANI. We shall see what they have to say. Ythlev (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

On that narrow urbanized/built-up point, there is a difference in meaning between where its highly urbanized population is concentrated and where its population is concentrated in highly built-up areas. The change was a worthy attempt to work around the edit war, but if we're having to reword to avoid -ise/-ize words, the style dispute is having a detrimental effect on the content. Kanguole 09:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. You can only go so far with neutral wording. Ythlev (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder how many more instances we can change to neutral wording? It might be worth a try. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): It's funny how you use this chart where -ize is what makes the higher number but we already agree to use -ize. Ythlev (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You can't change everything to neutral wording, but you can often do some. On urbanized, I understand the difference in meaning, but I don't see the second as any worse. Given nowhere in the article do we call the population urbanized, the change was actually a better fit for the article text. I'd replace "built-up" with just "urban" myself, but that's minor. CMD (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with Kanguole, Fyunck(click), Ythlev and CMD that my forlorn attempt at commonality changed meaning slightly and that one "can't change everything to neutral wording". However, I also detect that some of you may have realized that my primary motivation is to deflect and divert from "spelling wars" that can waste a great deal of editor time and attention and escalate the build-up of non-collegial feelings when we really do need to stick to Wikipedia's established policies until and unless a clear local consensus develops to consistently use a different variety than the original Oxford English.--BushelCandle (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

To assist in this aim, here's a useful list of Oxford English spellings from the United Nations.--BushelCandle (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is why we went through this last year with the article mostly in American English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There must be synonyms and minor re-write tweaks that can alleviate all the spelling differences. That is a compromise worth some effort I think. I tried my best on some but perhaps other writers can find better choices on others? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits trying to find opportunities for exercising commonality Fyunck(click), it's much appreciated and a policy compliant tactic.

careful editing rather than spasm reverting is appreciated!

However, either having a mixture of English varieties (outwith quotations) or unilaterally reverting to an arbitrary point in this article's history where spellings were mixed does flout established Wikipedia policy standards and irritate some editors.

PS: I nearly forgot to thank you for the careful and painstaking way you changed Oxford English spellings to US spellings, being very careful not to lose other edits not related to spelling variety in the process...--BushelCandle (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I did my best not to have a mixture at all, and I think we can do better to remove/rewrite any argumentative words. It is not an arbitrary point in history however. Someone picking 7 May 2019 or 16 April 2019 would be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There really are only a few points in an article's history of editing that are NOT arbitrary: the very first edit to the article and the version that first introduced an identifiable variety of English. I have sourced the first edit that introduced a non-US variety of English right at the very beginning of this section, the only thing then left to do was to decide whether the article was then originally written in Hiberno, Australian, Indian or some other variety of English and I have also cited above the very next edit by the same editor that clarified that (of all the varieties of non-US English s/he could have used) they used Oxford English.

Now please stop trying to circumvent our Manual of Style: use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety - Oxford English.--BushelCandle (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Any article can be changed to anything by consensus. Nothing is forever here. Plus MOS states "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." There was consensus to change, and the most consistent usage, since it was re-written many times, is by far American English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If and when a consensus is reached to change this article's spelling from the ORIGINAL non-US English variety, then that would be within the rules - but I certainly don't see any such consensus so far. And, in the absence of such consensus, the original variety from 2003 needs to retained. End of.--BushelCandle (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The we will have to completely agree to disagree on that point. However the first usage in the article was the non-oxford date format in American style, MDY.... multiple times, and way before your listed entry. "Recognize" is certainly not British English but is either Oxford or American English so that one is moot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Even if we go with that table above, 23 to 74 is nowhere close to "consistent", not to mention -ize is not American, as pointed out to you many times. By the way, another user has disagreed to use American English. MOS:RETAIN: "When discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." Ythlev (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way, we don't use the date format to determine what variety of English to use. If we did, then all articles with DMY dates should avoid American English. Ythlev (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Do not convert more words if you have nothing to say to these points. Ythlev (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Back to BushelCandle's last edit. And who the heck appointed you God? This is what got you in trouble with administration last time you went edit warring and changed thousands of articles against consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I got in trouble for using AWB to make controversial edits, which is not allowed. There is no rule against making controversial edits manually. And you are now the one ignoring discussion, which is disruptive editing. Ythlev (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want to change the last consensus go ahead a start a new RfC. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The last consensus was to prefer no particular style. Ythlev (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Wonky layout due to pictures

There's a lot of white space with no text to scroll through due to the number of pictures along the right side of the article. Can some of the pictures be moved into a gallery format to help cut down on that? Psu256 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There are a few excessive images, e.g. in the Military section, but the real problem is more the three overloaded infoboxes at the start of the article, which push the illustrations for the early sections into a huge stack. Kanguole 18:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes the images are somewhat excessive, but another problem of whitespace is the overwhelming pile of images on the right side. I have moved some to the left to help with the logjam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As I say, the real cause of the logjam is the excessive infoboxes. Also, when you move an image near the end of a section to the left, that can bump the next section heading to the right, which looks awful. Kanguole 20:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It can do that regardless of whether it's near the end or not. But there's no way for me to tell since everyone has a different window size to view the page. There were (and still are) too many pics on the right side. It looked perfect from my end. But yes... that first infobox is long, but I think shorter than the United Kingdom infobox. But then we have two more ridiculous infoboxes that really interfere with photos. Strange, I tried adding the "collapse" attribute to the two extra infoboxes, but it doesn't seem to work for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the name boxes:

• There is no need for images of the characters, when we have the characters as text just below.
• The Tibetan, Zhuang, Mongolian, Uyghur and Manchu versions of "Republic of China" are out of place here. Deleting them would not be a loss of information, as they are duplicated in Republic of China (1912–1949), where they make more sense.

There's a fair bit of cruft in the main box too (deputy speaker??). Kanguole 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gallery formats are deprecated since they don't honour user's preferences for image size. WP:IMGDD states "Don't set fixed image sizes". They're also a bad idea because they tend to move apposite images away from relevant text.

Kanguole has correctly identified that, as with many Wikipedia articles, the excessive length of the right aligned infoboxes pushes images too far down the page and away from the text they relate too. This is most acute where the leading text is short but, even with long ledes like in this article it can remain a problem.
Moving images to be left aligned is no real solution since, depending on screen width and enlargement, text can then end up in a thin worm, sandwiched between a left aligned image and either the extended infobox or, heaven forbid, an opposite, right aligned images.

Folks need to realise that it is inherent to the way that W3C standards work that there will be thousands of versions to the way that articles visually display since there are very many permutations of browser and screen widths.

I'd also point out that many specialists think it best that humans don't face away (rather than into) body text.

Losing cruft and collapsing boxes by default (well done, Fyunck(click) for attempting this,) may be the way forward, but it will be a constant battle - drive-by editors just love adding (and arguing about) crud (they would say pearls of information) to infoboxes and the fact that the code is always towards the top of the first things they see, assists in the inexorable growth.--BushelCandle (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the Japanese from the Taiwan language infobox, and the China section of the Republic of China infobox, as both are quite minor in usage these days. CMD (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sandwiching

I'm afraid I take issue with this edit and the edit summary that accompanied it of "Everything piled on one side make the article look a bit amateurish." Consequently, unless someone can advance policy-compliant reasons for why it should be endured, I intend to negate it.

There are good reasons why MOS:IMAGELOCATION advises Most images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement:

1) It is really highly subjective and a matter of personal preference as to whether articles look better with most images consistently on the left, consistently on the right or alternating at wide intervals between left and right positioning. Some prefer one layout - similar numbers of readers prefer the other.

2) However, with relatively narrow screens and many browsers, there are distinct readability advantages to having all images, infoboxes, maps, tables and other non-text elements consistently positioned on either the right or the left and this is an objective fact.

3) What we should really try to avoid is a thin worm of text that is difficult to read because it is "sandwiched" between right and left-facing images:

Military

Republic of China Navy Kidd-class destroyers

Republic of China Air Force Indigenously produced fighter airplane

Republic of China Marine Corps frogmen during the 2016 National Day celebration

Republic of China Military Police is a separate branch in the armed forces. In the picture, a military policeman stands guard in Hsinchu Air Base

To­day, Tai­wan main­tains a large and tech­nologic­ally ad­vanc­ed mil­it­ary, main­ly to count­er­act the con­stant thr­eat of in­vas­ion by the Peo­ple's Lib­era­tion Army us­ing the Anti-Sec­ess­ion Law of the Peo­ple's Rep­ub­lic of Chi­na as a pre­text. This law author­izes the use of mil­it­ary force when cer­tain con­dit­ions are met, such as a dan­ger to main­land­ers.

From 1949 to the 1970s, the primary mission of the Taiwanese military was to "retake mainland China" through Project National Glory. As this miss­ion has transitioned away from attack because the relative strength of the PRC has massively increas­ed, the ROC military has begun to shift emphasis from the traditionally dominant Army to the air force and navy.

Consequently, unless someone can advance policy-compliant reasons for why this policy-busting edit should be endured, I intend to negate it shortly. BushelCandle (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the Military section is one of the most overloaded with images. I'd suggest just the aircraft and the ships (and there are better images of this aircraft on the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo page). Kanguole 12:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree trim is needed.--Moxy 🍁 00:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Please would you explain the concept of "overloaded" and "trim is needed" when, with the consistent and default right positioning and default sizes, all of these relevant, informative and good quality images can be comfortably accommodated without the images spilling into the subsequent section?

The images removed were an important illustrative aid to understanding the quality and range of capabilities of Taiwan's armed forces. If you believe otherwise, then please advance your rationale.

If that rationale is convincing, then our policy is to, when possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones.

Please also explain why alt text for one of the remaining images of "Two warships in dock" is superior and more helpful to the visually impaired than "Two of the navy's current destroyers in dock". --BushelCandle (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Five images is too many for a section of that size – we should select those that best illustrate what the text is saying. Not all readers are using a desktop screen.

Alt text needs to complement the caption, not repeat it. Kanguole 16:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree we need to keep WP:ACCESS issues in mind. Removing the sandwiching was correct, but even right-aligned, I don't think the section is really long enough to hold more than two images.

On the image choices, I don't find any of the three images currently included (thunderbolt truck, indigenous plane, American-made ships) as being significant aids to understanding. The removed military police one actually provides some useful information, and if space remains the fighter jet seems the most informative as it has a notable bit of information.

On sandwiching more generally, the practice of alternating images is well established, although placing images left can cause some issues such as overlapping with section headers. In my experience, country articles are prone to suffer from image overload (and other overloads), and careful selection is important. (For example here the APEC summit picture seems insignificant, and the caption from the relief map geography image could be modified to fit the köppen climage image instead.) CMD (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean the caption of the military police image, rather than the image itself. If the military police being a separate branch is so important (which I'm not sure it is), then it could be mentioned in the article text.

The destroyers are mentioned in the text, so it seems reasonable to show them (particularly for readers who know what to look for in a modern warship). Kanguole 15:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

In the Transport section, the high-speed trains seem more interesting than the row of plane tails. Kanguole 15:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I am taking the caption and image together in these assessments since none of the images jumps out by itself. However important the note on the Military Police is, I find it a better caption than simply identifying a vehicle. Similarly, a better caption on the ship image would be appreciated.

Agreed on the train vs plane tails. CMD (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Largest settlement

@Isko1901: New Taipei is not a city as defined by the Local Government Act. It is a special municipality with the word "City" in its name. The three cities are Keelung, Hsinchu and Chiayi. If we are using the common definition of a city, then New Taipei is a part of Taipei. Ythlev (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Specifying |largest_settlement_type=division is not very useful. The |largest_settlement= parameter is for settlements, not local government areas. In this case, it might be better to use |largest_settlement=Taipei–Keelung. While not a "city" in terms of the Local Government Act, it is a city and a settlement in a broader sense. Kanguole 14:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think simply Taipei will do. Or Taipei–New Taipei, because I'm not sure if including Keelung but not Taoyuan makes any sense. That definition is no longer used by the government. Ythlev (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Fine, as long as it represents the whole urban area, rather than an administrative division. Kanguole 18:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Largest settlement type must remain city, division is not a settlement type. I would support Taipei–Keelung metropolitan area for largest settlement as metro area is whats used on most pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, New Taipei City is the real city, because it has own mayor. You can see this article: Mayor of New Taipei. Based on your argument about special municipality, so Taipei, Taichung, Tainan, and Kaohsiung are not cities. Ivan Humphrey (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Largest cities of Taiwan Ivan Humphrey (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ivan Humphrey: If having a mayor makes the place a city, Jianshi, Hsinchu is also a city. Ythlev (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

As noted above, the |largest_settlement= parameter is for settlements, not local government areas delimited by arbitrary lines on a map. New Taipei and Taipei are part of the same urban area, and it is that urban area that is the largest settlement in Taiwan. Kanguole 17:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole: So, if we use the |largest_settlement=, then Greater Milan is larger than Greater Rome in Italy, and Rhine-Ruhr is larger than Greater Berlin in Germany. And, change Quezon City in infobox country of Philippines article to Greater Manila Area. Ivan Humphrey (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say just don't have it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not really a stable solution though, as someone will always come along wanting to fill in the parameter (which is supplied for most other countries). Kanguole 17:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

and anyone can come along and alter it (as in fact this little edit war demonstrates), but if its not there the temptation is less.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bokmanrocks01: Stop. New Taipei is an administrative area, not a separate city from Taipei. I live in Taiwan and I don't know anyone who says they are "from New Taipei". Ythlev (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Then we should use Taipei as the city, but not some metropolitan statistical area. It needs to be a city. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The metropolitan area is the city. The difficulty is that Taipei refers to both the whole city and to a local administrative area within it (cf City of London and City of Sydney). If we use Taipei here, it would be more accurate to pipe it to the metropolitan area than the local government area Taipei. Kanguole 07:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason why Taipei can't be treated like London, not Greater London, not City of London, both. Ythlev (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

New Taipei City is clearly Taiwan's most populated city and should be listed as such on the infobox. But there seems to be continual edits to remove that entry each time it gets restored. So just to clear the confusion, is New Taipei Taiwan's most populated city? For those who don't think so, why? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Did we not just have this discussion a couple of months ago?Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Republic of China (Taiwan)

REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN)

Regarding the question of the English language name for this government, I think it's clear that the government heavily favors the formulation "Republic of China (Taiwan)" over a straight "Republic of China". I am just following what the existing, functional government is saying about itself. The argument for "Republic of China" seems to be favoring the PRC's position on the Constitution of the Republic of China, and that's not really interesting compared to the following collection of links where a living, breathing, fully operational government is declaring itself to be "Republic of China (Taiwan)" since at least 2008. English Wikipedia is not supposed to be a pro-Chinese Communist Party website- it's supposed to be a neutral, unbiased source of information for the English speaking audience. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ROC_Taiwan_Area_Resident_Certificate_sample_20081001.png https://english.president.gov.tw/ "Office of the President Republic of China (Taiwan)"; https://english.moe.gov.tw/mp-1.htmlhttwww.mofa.gov.tw/en/ "Copyright © 2014 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) All Rights Reserved."; https://www.taiwan.gov.tw/ "Copyright © 2018 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) "; cf. https://www.matsu.gov.tw/Enhtml/Index "Taiwan (R.O.C.) https://www.taiwan.gov.tw/images/content/ts.JPG%7Ctitle=TAIWAN SNAPSHOT Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You may say that it's awkward that the English language name of this government includes parentheses in this manner. Well, go talk to them about it my friends! It's not my fault. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It's really the government's fault. Doing so for English but not Chinese opens the door for this kind of dispute. Ythlev (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The constitution of the ROC does not add any parentheses after the formal name. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

In Chinese. Ythlev (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The ROC gov't isn’t adding "(Taiwan)" because it’s part of the official name, it’s adding the common name, Taiwan, as a parenthetical descriptor so that people will know what country they’re referring to. Phlar (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It does not seem so in this quote from president Tsai "We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China (Taiwan)."[1]. There is no law specifying the English official name, so the government could use different names flexibly, and adjust the name to fit the political stance of the party in power. Also in this government publication [2] it explicitly says the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)--Visaliaw (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting citations. I wonder how the BBC concluded that she intended to put “Taiwan” in parenthesis, given that she was speaking, not writing. She could have just as easily meant it to be separated with a comma instead of parens. They also added “the” before “Republic of China” even though she clearly didn’t say “THE Republic of China” in the interview. But that’s beside the point—your MOFA reference clearly supports the inclusion of “(Taiwan)” in the official name. Phlar (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The website of the office of the president shows the full text of that interview.[3].--Visaliaw (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The official name of Taiwan is simply the Republic of China, pursuant to its constitution. Quetstar (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The constitution is in Chinese. It does not say 中華民國 should to be translated into Republic of China.--Visaliaw (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The arguments here don't make much sense to me. The official English translation of Côte d'Ivoire is Côte d'Ivoire, yet we call it Ivory Coast. So we don't follow the English translations of governments anyway. 中華民國 has always been translated in English as Republic of China. It doesn't seem neutral to me to change that. Also, many government websites still write Republic of China, without reference to Taiwan. Are they less official? De wafelenbak (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't make sense to me. The Ivory coast article says "officially the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire", which follows the English translation of the government.--Visaliaw (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Until a consensus is reached, the long form should not be altered. As De wafelenbak points out, other government sites still refer to the ROC as just the "ROC" even the presidency The introduction to the Constitution and from the Mainland Affairs Council the Act Governing Relations Between the Mainland Area and the Taiwan Area. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The title of your link is Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan). The English constitution on the website does not have legal validity equivalent to that of the Chinese version. Actually government websites uses all three names Republic of China, Republic of China(Taiwan), and Taiwan to refer to the state. The most prevalent out of the three is Taiwan, see the title and contents of those government news announcements[4][5][6]. The current article preferring Republic of China over the other two names is not neutral. Republic of China (Taiwan) is a compromise of the three names. --Visaliaw (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I am able to read thank you, I did not provide the link to be told about the title of the link, I'm aware of that. It is the content within the link which I used. As to the English constitution not having equal standing with the Chinese version, well, you'd probably find the latter referring more to "Republic of China." In what way will ANY of the names ever be truly "Neutral?" The constitutional title of the state is Republic of China, which has long been accepted, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find consensus to change it any time soon. Otherwise, we'd be in a position where we'd be saying "officially the Republic of China (Taiwan)" and constitutionally the Republic of China, which makes things even more longwinded."

"The current article preferring Republic of China over the other two names is not neutral." Actually, I'd say the fact that the title of the article is already at its common name means that this should be a non-issue, at least in the grander scheme of things, and if you actually read the article of the state, you'd see it being referred to as Taiwan far more than your implication. Even within the lead paragraphs, it is referred to as "Taiwan", so I'm actually struggling to understand why this should be an issue at all.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Chinese name 中華民國 does not automatically translate to Republic of China in English, you are confusing two different things.

• 中華民國律師公會 is "Taiwan Bar association" in English [7]
• 中華民國內分泌學會 is "The Endocrine Society of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" in English[8]
• 中華民國棒球協會 is "Chinese Taipei baseball association" in English[9]
• 中華民國全國漁會 is "National Fishermen's Association Taiwan, R.O.C" in English [10]

The translation of the constitution you provided is one datapoint how the government translates the name, but the constitution itself only says the Chinese name is 中華民國, and did not designate the English name.

While I say the current article preferring Republic of China, I mean the current article saying the official name is "Republic of China" is not neutral. The official name should reflect the government's usage, while the government does not prefer "Republic of China" over other names.

How about changing the first sentence into: Taiwan, officially also the Republic of China or the Republic of China(Taiwan)?--Visaliaw (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably the best way to do it. We should keep the constitutional name in the inbox, however Republic of China (Taiwan) is highly used by the government. --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that is just absurd. The addition provides no additional information. Ythlev (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you suggest? The purpose of the addition is not to provide additional information but to maintain neutrality, since both names are used by the government. I don't understand why you think it is absurd. As other editors have told you below, it would be more constructive if you could review the previous discussions and provide an argument for your reasoning..--Visaliaw (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how replacing a Taiwan and an ROC with 2 Taiwans and 2 ROCs is any more neutral.Ythlev (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that websites are not official documents, but passports are, and they say Republic of China in the Nationality field. Ythlev (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, this sections starts with an official document using Republic of China (Taiwan)--Visaliaw (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to be easily readable. Adding another variant of the "official" name would make it much harder to read. The subtleties of the government’s various and inconsistent naming conventions do not need to be described in the first sentence. The current wording informs the reader that this state goes by "Taiwan," "Republic of China" and "ROC". This covers all the bases—we don’t need to list other combinations of these three monikers.

We already have the following sentence in the Etymology section: In some contexts, especially ROC government publications, the name is written as "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China/Taiwan", or sometimes "Taiwan (ROC)". Maybe the problem with the first sentence lies in the word "officially". Do we have to declare an official name in the first sentence? How about changing "officially" to "also called"? And perhaps the discussion in Etymology could be expanded, maybe even given its own " Official name" subsection. Phlar (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Many people believe Taiwan and ROC are different. Ythlev (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure who is included in your "many people," but the average American isn't sure that Taiwan is not Thailand, has never heard of the "ROC" and doesn't see a difference between "Republic of China" and "People’s Republic of China" ("isn't the former just a shortened version of the latter?"). The first sentence needs to be written with these average readers in mind. Phlar (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The many users who would revert such a change. Ythlev (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No matter what we write the first sentence will constantly be challenged and edited. We as a community of editors have to come to a consensus on what it should say and then maintain/defend that. Phlar (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What it should say is of course what is most agreeable.The most agreeable statement is that Taiwan is the common name of the state officially named ROC. Ythlev (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I belive we should follow the constitution, which states that the official name is the Republic of China. Quetstar (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe we should follow the living ROC (Taiwan)'s interpretation of its own constitution and legal framework rather than the PRC's interpretation of that constitution. That ROC (Taiwan) interpretation can be seen on the English language documents and websites generated throughout the ROC (Taiwan) territory, including Quemoy and Matsu and the PRC interpretation is not really relevant except on the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China page where PRC claims are documented. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC) (modified)

If you read the discussion above, I provided an argument about the constitution only specifying the Chinese name but not English name.--Visaliaw (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The passport does. Ythlev (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The shown card of international relations of Taiwan isn't correct now.

Need to refresh - Panama and other South American states resigned their acceptance of Taiwan - due to economic ties with China and five Principles which China always demanding in trade deals [acceptance of geo integrity]

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Change to Taiwan, China to recognize international standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.115.16 (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

What international standard?Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussing neutrality

Are we in consensus for these edits: [11] - adding "disputed" to the beginning as it is a disputed state w/ extremely limited recognition /// also removing the PRC as a neighbor (implying that the PRC and Taiwan are different nations) per the One-China policy that both nations adhere to

[12] - replacing "threatening language" with "objections"; replacing "called upon" (implying that it's a universally accepted good cause) with "requested" and democracy replaced with "de facto independence"

[13] - while the preceding editor didn't know that the Chinese Civil War led to the Retreat to Taiwan, I'm assuming other editors here would. This replaces the term "fall of the Mainland" (the only place where the term fall appears is in Western propoganda) with "the retreat to Taiwan as a result of the Chinese Civil War."

[14] < this edit shows the extent of the lack of neutrality in the article. Augend (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: I would like to clarify a couple points:

 > Fall of China refers to the fall of China to communism, not the fall of the ROC. This is wrong because as Wikipedia, we're supposed to be as neutral as possible. Capitalism and communism are different ideas, it's not as if one is superior to the other.

 > Nowhere did I say that the ROC wasn't a state, I just said we needed to add such terms as "disputed" to eliminate accusations of Selective reporting
 > Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

   >> Both parties/sides (the majority) accept the One-China Policy and thus this view should be expressed in the article.

I strongly oppose your proposed edits. It's very clear that you're trying to push a pro China POV and it's not constructive at all. Other editors have raised this concern when they corrected reverted your edits. Île flottante (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: While it may sound as such, to a third party terms like the "fall of China" provides such connotations as "the right and just cause has failed" - which is not at all neutral. Also, such terms as "called upon the international community" vs. "requested assistance from the international community" and "democracy" both provide connotations as "Taiwan > PRC," which naturally isn't really neutral either. The state is disputed. I strongly advise you read the Kosovo page. Just because Taiwan has a different political structure does not mean it gets a page any different than the Kosovo one. Do you agree? Also, what happened to the One China policy? Both nations agree to it but we're still here insisting that they are different nations. Kosovo is referred to as a partially-recognized state in Southeast Europe, subject to a territorial dispute with the Republic of Serbia... I think you yourself are being slightly pro-Taiwan here; this appears to be Selective reporting. Augend (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: To reiterate, the "loss of China" refers, in U.S. political discourse, to the unexpected Communist Party takeover of mainland China from the American-backed Nationalists in 1949, and therefore the "loss of China to communism". --- from our own Wikipedia page for "loss of China" - so I mean our own page calls it "American political discourse", implying that the status quo for "fall of China" isn't neutral; instead it uses a term from American political discourse - and the American standpoint on this matter is far from neutral. Augend (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with and reject your comparison between the articles covering Kosovo and Taiwan. The situations share no historical or political similarity. Moreover, editors are not bound by precedent in some stare decisis -esque fashion. The fall of China to communism is a fairly common turn of phrase. The one China policy does not bind Wikipedia. Île flottante (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've completely proved your pro-Taiwan views on this point. They share all political similarity - fraught by communism and as a result of communism embroiled in conflict. Both Kosovo and Taiwan are disputed states. Thus descriptions on their status must be reasonably similar. One can't just go around calling a place a "state" with 14 countries recognizing it and go on another article calling another place a "partially-recognized state with as the subject of a territorial dispute" (mind you the second one has 115 countries recognizing it while Taiwan has 14, a difference of more than 100). The fall of China to communism is a term, again, present only in American propaganda. It is seldomly used out of the United States and the term is seen as derogatory to Communist Chinese persons. Surely you don't want to offend people here... replacing it to "the retreat of ROC forces to Taiwan" should be more accurate. I would like to reiterate: fall implies going downwards - fall of something to a cause implies that it has dropped to a lower level. That is blatantly wrong. Capitalism and communism are ideas, just different ideas, that's all. It's not as if one is worse than the other, and if you think that one is better than the other you are in no position to be commenting on this topic. As I said, it is important to make a clarification between de facto and de jure. De jure the One Policy is the accepted norm, and nothing you say will change anything about it. De facto is different. That is why it was so important to use these terms, see edit 2. Please don't bring your personal views in here. If you think China "fell" to a lower position on October 1st, 1949, then please excuse yourself from this discussion. Thank you. Augend (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A State is defined in international law as having three characteristics (codified un article 1 of the Montevideo convention): a defined population, a defined territory and a government able to exercise control over the two. Taiwan has all of these and is therefore a state. Whether one or one hundred other states formally recognise that is immaterial. It’s only due to modern Chinese imperialism that other states don’t both recognise both Taiwan and China. If China didn’t pursue a hostile foreign policy mixed with repressive and discriminatory domestic policies, Taiwan would probably have long since formally changed its constitution. There’s really no point continuing to post this sort of pro-CCP nonsense because you’re unlikely to convince anyone. That other countries don’t recognise Taiwan is simply due to China’s international bullying, not due to any deeply held conviction on the sovereignty over the territory of Taiwan. Île flottante (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be going in the direction of creating a straw man here. Calling edits "pro-CCP nonsense" isn't going to be constructive in a discussion. Straying away from association fallacy may also be a good idea, there is no need to introduce such strong language in these discussions. Mopswade (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

They said "pro-CCP nonsense,” its extremely important to quote other editors accurately. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, edited. Mopswade (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: Please refer to the edits again; where in the edits did I deny that Taiwan was a state? I merely intended on elaborating on the fact that it's a disputed state; this is the viewpoint most have, regardless if they support Taiwan's independence; in other words, most supporters of Taiwanese independence know that Taiwan suffers from limited recognition and it is in a territorial dispute with the PRC. This is fact, not opinion. Augend (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: Also, until 1990, Taiwan maintained the same requirement as the PRC; that is, in order to have ties with either party, one must relinquish ties with the other. Obviously more countries have more economic/cultural ties with the mainland, so more countries opted to select China. Please do your research here. It is only within the past couple years that the ROC relinquished this policy, so it would be immaterial to call this policy "China's international bullying" - seeing that until a couple years ago the ROC held this policy too. Again, furthering my previous point, I'm not advocating for either side, I'm just saying it would be proper to highlight that it is a disputed state like Kosovo despite Kosovo having more recognition. I would also like to clarify that I'm quoting the article, not expressly calling the ROC something other than a state. It is important to include the term disputed; failure to do so would represent Selective reporting on Wikipedia's part. Augend (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Île flottante, the Montevideo Convention provides only one definition of a state. Note that under the convention, Canada would not be considered a state, although it was a founding member of the League of Nations and the U.S. had recognized it since 1926. TFD (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

TFD, Canada most certainly does pass the Montevideo convention in the present day due to the Constitution Act 1982 which formalised Canadian sovereignty. The exercise of de facto sovereignty prior royal assent fulfilled the criterion of effective government according to the Montevideo convention even before. The Constitution Act 1982 was passed to resolve internal legal questions, but Canada unilaterally entered into agreements with other subjects of international law before then, thus demonstrating the Canadian government's exercise of sovereignty. Remember, the Montevideo convention merely codified preexisting international customary law, which does not distinguish between a polity who formally owes sovereignty to another and ones who does not; the criterion is met when a government exercises full control over a population and a territory, regardless of whether that particular polity's internal law regards itself as sovereign or not. Prior to 1931 it's debatable whether Canada met the criteria as some decisions were still made in the United Kingdom. Île flottante (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Île flottante, it's questionable that Canada would have met the permanent population clause, since it did not have citizens. Or if you argue that it did, then Canadian provinces and British colonies would also meet the criteria. The convention did not codify existing criteria, but replaced the constitutive territory, which held that recognition alone mattered. So British India was recognized as a state when it was still a colony. In any case, Wikipedia policy determines which countries are states based on the conclusions in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose edits, OP lacks a basic understanding of wikipedia policy in particular WP:neutral. There also appears to be an english comprehension issue... There is nothing derogatory about “fall" in this context. Its literally a tautology that for the PRC to rise the ROC had to fall, you can't take territory without taking it from someone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: The issue isn't that; it would be convenient to describe what exactly is in issue with WP:NEUTRAL; it isn't constructive to cite all of these WP policies without actually using reasoning to back up your point; with grade-school claim-evidence-reasoning you have the claim and evidence, now's the time to explain yourself. While the ROC had to fall, you clearly don't understand the term; the term implies that China fell to communism, not the ROC fell; yes we understand the ROC had to fall for the PRC to rise, but the term refers to China falling to communism, not the ROC falling in favor of the PRC. Please refer to the definition and origin of terms before presenting your ideas; failure to do so will just make your point look irrelevant. This isn't an English comprehension issue; it's a you-didn't-bother-reading-the-Wikipedia-article-about-the-term-and-it's-background issue. Augend (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: There's also more to be heard here; in WP:Neutral it specifically notes Avoid stating opinions as facts - calling a "state" disputed if it only has 14 recognizing nations isn't an opinion, it's a fact (refer to the Kosovo page). Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts - most neutral outlets like Encyclopaedia Brittanica and major news outlets like Reuters and AP refer to Taiwan as a disputed territory/state, so per your own policy this criterion dissipates too. Avoid stating facts as opinions - this criterion is irrelevant. Prefer nonjudgmental language - specifically Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone - again, a disputed state isn't judging, the term "disputed" is seen in many other controversial topics pages so unless you'd like to modify the status quo (which go ahead nothing is stopping you from doing so), the usage of the term here should work. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views - Taiwan is a disputed state, and only ultra-nationalists call it otherwise. Many Taiwan folks say Taiwan is it's own nation, but all of them agree that Taiwan is in a disputed state and definitely not with the recognition that most nations receive. Further in your policy, "[f]or example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment" - again, while the term "disputed" might appear to pass judgement, it's a legitimate way to describe Taiwan, and the term "in a struggle with the PRC" appeared briefly in ROC documents. [i]f a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. as said before, most people recognize that, regardless if they accept Taiwan as a seperate country, Taiwan is in a state of dispute in terms of recognition. As mentioned, only ultra-nationalists (extremely small minority) think the ROC is universally accepted and administrates the entirety of the Chinese mainland. Please refer to WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Augend (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Re the ping you put on my talk page, I reaffirm that I disagree with your proposed edits and for the same reasons as I’ve put above. My response to what you you’ve just said would essentially be the same so I won’t repeat myself. Clearly there isn’t consensus for your proposed edits. Île flottante (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: In all honesty, your reasons are far too Americentric/Eurocentric to actually be constructive. Many of your facts were incorrect, and clearly you think Taiwan isn't a disputed territory, that you haven't done enough research to adequately support your point (the ROC maintained almost the exact same requirements as the PRC until 1991, it's not the PRC's international bullying) and according to your explanations, you maintain that communism is worse than capitalism. Augend (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Being European, of course my viewpoint is European. Likewise, your viewpoint is influenced by your cultural background. In fact, everyone’s viewpoint is influenced by their background; that’s what makes humanity such a wonderfully diverse thing. My argument regarding the term state is a legal one: international public law sets conditions for statehood. Once those conditions are objectively met, a state is a state. Recognition is not a criteria of statehood in classical public international law outside the Americas (regional customary international law codified in the Montevideo convention). Taiwan not being situated within the Americas, its recognition or the lack thereof has no bearing on its statehood and therefore it is a legal fallacy to discuss ‘disputed’ statehood as such an appellation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a state is. Île flottante (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Ythlev (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: That isn't constructive. Lay out a couple reasons why, that's how things work there. Review the previous discussions and lay out your reasoning. Augend (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: Another thing - while I do not want to sound like this is a personal attack, you've been called out multiple times for failing to understand the NPOV policy, but more specifically, for edit warring over this exact topic. I'm not entirely sure you can, therefore, maintain an open mind and neutral POV in this scenario. Augend (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This discussion won't be constructive regardless but I'll entertain you anyways. the One-China policy that both nations adhere to. Taiwan (ROC) does not adhere to no one-China policy. You probably got that idea from the constitution but a country's laws does not represent it's political position. In the UK, it is illegal to fly a kite in a public place. Also, the constitution does not mention anything about one-China. Ythlev (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Kosovo is referred to as a partially-recognized state. The word "partially-recognized" should be removed for Kosovo, not the other way around. The word is subjective. China and South Korea are also partially-recognized. Ythlev (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: When we say "partially recognized" we usually mean that a significant number of other, almost fully recognized countries do not recognize it. This is extremely true for Kosovo, where the vast majority of other countries do not recognize it. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 23:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: I agree with User:Augend. WP:CONSENSUS states that consensus in a discussion is not the result of a vote. Provide an argument for your reasoning. sam1370 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• The phrase fall of China to communism (or fall of China implicitly referring to the PRC) does not seem WP:NPOV and can easily be replaced by different phrasing that expresses the historical outcome without using a phrase that can have good-bad connotations. If others still disagree, one should probably open an RfC for this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• From what I can see there is no consensus to make any of those changes. I would agree with Ythlev on this with a big nope. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck, Île flottante, @Augend: I agree with adding “disputed state” to the beginning as the lead is kind of weird in that it treats Taiwan like any other independent, recognized country (which it isn’t) — if you don’t add disputed state here, you might as well remove it from, using Augend’s example, Kosovo as well. However, I disagree with removing the PRC as a member state because disputed states are obviously still states that have neighbors. Even if I make up random borders on a map, those borders still have neighbors to them.

I disagree with parts of #2 (which I see has already been added to the article without consensus, will someone please remove that) — I disagree with the first part, replacing “threatening language” with “objections” as the article states “referring to threats by China to use force to bring Taiwan under its control” — these are clearly not diplomatic objections but a direct threat to Taiwan’s independence. I also disagree with the second part, “called upon” does not imply an accepted good cause, the definition from Cambridge states “to ask formally for someone to do something” which doesn’t imply a good cause at all. I agree with the third one however, since saying “to protect democracy” is non-neutral and just weird considering there are already lots of other democratic nations in the world.

I agree with #3, the current “The constitution was drafted before the fall of mainland China to the Communist Party of China” is biased and implies that China falling to the Communist Party of China is somehow bad, your replacement is fine. Even if you disagree that the current sentence is biased, the mere fact that it is controversial means that there shouldn’t be any objections with replacing it with a more neutral version.

That’s my arguments on the subjects, please reply if you disagree and have good counterarguments. And please don’t misconstrue this argument as me leaning one way or the other, I simply speak in the interest of protecting WP:NEUTRAL. sam1370 (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A decision made with regards to one article (Kosovo) doesn’t have to analogically apply to other articles. Taiwan has been separated from China for much longer than Kosovo has from Serbia, the ROC also has historically had more diplomatic relations than the PRC did. For these reasons, I don’t think there’s need to add disputed because the situations are clearly different. In the spirit of compromise, however, how about we phrase it “the Constitution was drafted whilst the ROC still governed the Chinese mainland.” Île flottante (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: Thanks for your input. @Île flottante: I'm still on the fence regarding the difference between Kosovo and Taiwan, because indeed while the ROC has historically had more relations than the PRC, that's when the PRC didn't exist yet... also I'm not denying the historical background, but out of interest of relevance those historical details should go to the Republic of China page **whichever one discusses ROC history, I forgot the precise dates, I think it was like 1918-1949**. I'll agree that generally speaking a decision with regards to one article doesn't really apply...? but in this scenario Kosovo and Taiwan have extremely similar present-day situations (but different in magnitude seeing Kosovo has more recognition). Regarding your compromise, that edit seems to work out for me. Augend (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: Yes, but Taiwan is still a disputed state that is recognized by even less countries than Kosovo. It being a disputed state is an important fact that relates to how it came to be, so it really should be included. I see no reason not to honestly. sam1370 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: As I've explained above, there's no such thing as a disputed state because a state is either objectively a state or it isn't. You can deny Mars is a planet as much as you like, but that doesn't make Mars a "disputed" planet because it meets the objective criteria. Likewise, Taiwan meets the objective criteria of a state (population, territory and effective government). China's imperialist foreign policy and bullying of other countries may affect where other countries chose to establish embassies, but Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Taiwan is objectively a state and there's no legal disputation regarding that. Again, recognition is not a criterion for statehood. Île flottante (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: As said, however, on the Kosovo page it includes the term disputed. It's disputed and that's it, we have to include it or else that's selectively reporting. I've also said, you can't call something imperialist bullying if Taiwan also practiced the same policy. Augend (drop a line) 21:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A disputed state is not a thing. We do not have to include it. Consensus is clearly against including it. Île flottante (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Go to the Kosovo article and remove the wording “disputed state” and replace it with “state”. I guarantee you they will not stand for that. Taiwan is, completely objectively, a disputed state. It has limited recognition. Therefore disputed. Yes it is mostly disputed because of China, but that’s besides the point. It is objectively disputed. sam1370 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

China is also objectively disputed. So is Israel. Ythlev (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Israel is mentioned in the Arabic Wikipedia as disputed. China isn't mentioned as disputed because by now no one actively challenges "who has authority over mainland China" anymore, it's just the divisive issue of "who has authority over Taiwan". Also, including mainland China as limited-recognition (which is true) gives undue weight to the countries that don't. Whereas here, calling Taiwan a *full* state gives undue weight to the couple of countries that do.

China isn't mentioned as disputed because by now no one actively challenges "who has authority over mainland China". 14 countries do. calling Taiwan a *full* state gives undue weight to the couple of countries that do. It's called a state, not a full state. Whether it is undue is based on reliable sources, and most users do not consider it undue. Ythlev (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Also the sky is blue in Taiwan, so we should write that. Ythlev (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That belongs in Climate in Taiwan; but the point is your point is moot b.c the sky is blue everywhere, but not all countries are disputed. Augend (drop a line) 16:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The sky is not blue on the moon. Just because something is true doesn't mean it belongs anywhere. Ythlev (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, there’s no such thing as a “disputed state” because the criteria of statehood are objective and not subjective; whether someone refuses to acknowledge their objective fulfilment is immaterial. The fact that editors on the Kosovo page decided to invent a pseudolegal term is beside the point: the word is an oxymoron and in any case decisions on unrelated articles are not binding on other articles. Île flottante (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a pseudolegal term, and Wikipedia is not a collection of legal materials. While it isn't binding, calling Taiwan a full state gives undue weight to the 14 nations that do, and calling the PRC a country with limited recognition gives undue weight, again, to this elite class of fourteen nations. Augend (drop a line) 16:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thats not what undue weight is. On the semantic point Île flottante is right, the term of art here is disputed territory. There is no such thing as a “disputed state” and if you don’t believe me try googling it. Your sarcastic reference to those countries as an elite class when you clearly believe anything but is uncalled for. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That is exactly what undue weight is. We completely and utterly ignore the countries that only recognize China here, advocating for the 14 countries that recognize Taiwan by pushing their point that "ROC is a fully sovereign state and the only legal administrator of China" - this is not in any way neutral. Using the term disputed incorporates the standpoint of the 100+ nations that don't recognize the ROC. You here are advocating for a biased standpoint and refuse to admit that the ROC is disputed territory, which it is. Augend (drop a line) 18:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Its territory being disputed has nothing to with whether or not its a country or a state (polity). Also just FYI I don’t think anybody here is arguing that "ROC is a fully sovereign state and the only legal administrator of China.” What gave you that idea? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Address my point, won't you? Why are you giving undue weight and solely representing the ideas of the 14 nations that recognize the ROC? Augend (drop a line) 20:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I agree, disputed state isn’t the right wording here. However, we should change it to “partially-recognized” state as a majority of countries do not recognize it. sam1370 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m not doing that. What gave you that impression? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah you are, in the opening section calling it a state implies it is one like the United States when clearly there's less recognition here... also look at the Kosovo example Augend (drop a line) 21:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually it does not imply that at all. It is why "sovereign state" was removed from the article in place of "state". The United States is a sovereign state and Taiwan is not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Augend: If you want to talk about due weight, read WP:DUE first. Due weight is based on reliable sources, not countries. Ythlev (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: I'm sorry, I cite the foreign affairs ministries of 170 countries versus 14. Augend (drop a line) 15:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are primary sources (many of them unreliable), and you haven't actually cited them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ythlev (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather use common sense and place greatest weight and reliability on the foreign affairs ministry of a state than secondary sources when looking for the official positions of nations in a dispute. Wikipedia's job is to make what is obviously skewed in one direction or another into a neutral interpretation (i.e. China is a pure idiot --Taiwan Foreign Affairs Ministry ---> "Taiwan is heavily opposed to China's influence"), etc etc. Augend (drop a line) 06:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Well that is not how Wikipedia works. Take your common sense elsewhere. Ythlev (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: I still don't understand your argument here. In the article as it currently stands, we are not mentioning the important detail that Taiwan is only partially recognized. I don't see why we shouldn't do so. Kosovo does it, so why shouldn't we? I understand that WP:WEIGHT doesn't really apply here, as that more has to do with points of view on a subject than actual facts, but the point still stands that this is an important detail that we're leaving out. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands certainly mentions it, we give it a whole paragraph in the lead. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: True. However, the detail is sufficiently important for it to be in the first sentence IMO. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 04:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if one of those islands was the national capital it still wouldn’t be sufficiently important to be in the first sentence. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

*Perhaps off-topic but relevant, some arguments here seemed to have been copy-pasted from global times. Everyone knows that the one-China policy is just a measure to keep the status quo, nothing more nothing less. Therefore to use this argument here, shows some COI. Hence, I think its good that the article is locked for now and that consensus is being sought, but with the important note that one-comment accounts are being investigated for their COI. Kenji1987 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Republic of China's latest HDI data

Information to be added or removed: Update the latest data of Republic og China's HDI data. Explanation of issue: Republic of China's HDI data is said to be based on the latest version, but the official data found on the stat.gov.tw. is more reliable than the aforementioned one. References supporting change: https://www.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=33332&CtNode=6020&mp=4 https://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Data/71228112733VTN8S5VB.pdf YuJenShih (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Some people really don't understand difference between facts and really. When it comes to India- 1. Jammu and Kashmir is a part of India, but India knows that a part of J&K is occupied by Pakistan. 2.India claims that Aksai Chin is a inseparable part of India and it will be always, but India also acknowledge the truth that China has it at least for now. But when it comes to China- 1.China claims Arunachal Pradesh, also knows that it's an Indian State. But still China want it and behave like they don't know the truth. 2. China claims Taiwan, despite Taiwan is a another country.

The difference is that India acknowledge the truth, China doesn't. Kushal2024 (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a conflict-of-interest? You have a COI in this subject area if you are working for the Taiwanese government. Otherwise, make the edit yourself and remove the {{request edit}} template. Aasim 20:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The requesting editor has not confirmed a COI relationship. Template set to answered. If the requestor wishes to proceed, please disclose whether there is a COI or not, and re-open the template. Regards,  Spintendo  15:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan...is a country?

The first line of this article states that "Taiwan...is a country in East Asia" and then gives three references that refer to Taiwan as a state. Where are the references to support the claim that Taiwan is a country? Birtig (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering how long this would take. [[15]], but just as easily its a state. I think state is rather more neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference since country is a term with no clear definition, whereas state implies sovereignty. It does come across a bit overly formal to describe Taiwan as a state, so perhaps country is more appropriate. Île flottante (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Where do you get that? For awhile this article read the "Taiwan is a sovereign state" and it was changed to simply "state" because state does not imply sovereignty. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I see it as just semantics.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, editor with an IR degree here... It is almost entirely semantics. In most contexts “country” and “state” can be used interchangeably. I would also note that there are two completely different relevant definitions of state, a sovereign state (99% of the time referred to as just state) and a state (polity). Both are used as synonyms for country although country is actually broader, any state (both definitions) or nation is a country. Based on the definitions we use in IR there isn't any debate that Taiwan is both a country and a state (polity), the only argument is over whether they are a sovereign state which is the debate we as wikipedians should remain neutral on. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: @Île flottante: I personally strongly discourage the usage of "country" in this sense because imo "country" has always implied sovereignty and recognition, while state has only indicated sovereignty. Augend (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of 'country' so long as there are sources that show Taiwan being described as a country. These 3 sources don't. Birtig (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing isn't the issue, we’l be able to find reliable sources using just about every variation and parsing possible around Taiwan. For country see for instance the BBC’s "Taiwan country profile” [16]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is so wired. Taiwan is only recognised by 17 countries. The UN consider Taiwan as part of China. The U.S and other nations don't have embassies in Taiwan.[17]

On the other hand, we have State of Palestine recognised by over one hundred countries, yet the lead starts with saying that it is a de jure sovereign state.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• The change was made by Thriw here. I have reverted his edit. It was not discussed and many don't agree with.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The Americans (and almost every other major country) do, its called the American Institute in Taiwan. Zero reason to drag the israeli-palestinian conflict into this, thats just asking for trouble. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, it is the status quo. It is the longstanding word. It shouldn't be changed without consensus. It was changed without consensus here--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That was more than two weeks ago. BTW all entities which are states by the polity definition are also countries, not entirely sure what you’re arguing here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's best we not draw analogies with other articles. Palestine is most definitely not a "de jure state" because it doesn't have effective sovereign government over its population and territory, whereas Taiwan does. Île flottante (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Only 17 countries recognise Taiwan as a country. It is a state, every country recognise this because it's a fact(it has a government, people, land etc). However, only 17 countries recognise it as country. It is wrong to give undue weight to these 17 countries.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

HEJ, please read Wikipedia's article Country and State (polity). They are not the same.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please read wikipedia’s article on country "A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state,[1] as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, a physical territory with a government, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics. It is not inherently sovereign.” My argument is not that they are the same, my argument is that all entities which are states (polity) are also by definition countries. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your understanding of international law is deeply flawed. If you open any textbook on international law it'll tell you that there are three conditions for statehood: a population, a territory and effective (sovereign) government of those two. In the Americas a fourth condition of being able to enter into relations with other states also exists. You can see this codified in article one of the Montevideo convention. Recognition by other states is not relevant. This is a very common mistake made by people with no understanding of the most basic principles of international law, but I would avise you to look into it as it might help you from repeating flawed arguments. Wikipedia articles are not sources. They are especially not sources of international law, so referring to them does not help your argument. Île flottante (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with saying that it is a country is that it makes it sound as if Wikipedia is siding with Taiwan against China's POV. I wouldn't say that I know much about international law but I know that there is a dispute between China and Taiwan over Taiwan's sovereignty. We should either say it is a "disputed state" or just let it as it is now (the longstanding version).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That's my point. A country can generally enter into agreements and maintain a functional international presence. Taiwan can't. Augend (drop a line) 21:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan absolutely can do those things. The fact that they have their own Defence Force and free elections is partial proof of that. There is actions politically from the PRC that makes people reluctant to do so but they still have allies or diplomatic relations with (14 I believe). I of course leave whether this should happen, shouldn't happen or the future up to them and the PRC. This is just the state of affairs now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: yeah I see that Taiwan has a standing military. What meant was an international presence as in being able to participate in international diplomacy and organizations, and as we know, "China"'s seat was handed over to the PRC in the 20th century. Augend (drop a line) 16:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Not just a standing military, one of the twenty most powerful militaries on the planet. They are active participants in international diplomacy and organizations. Their participation and innovation in fields of diplomacy such as Medical diplomacy#Taiwan, and Culinary diplomacy#Taiwan is groundbreaking and tbh I’ve even heard it described as “legendary.” If you notice the foundational scholarship for culinary diplomacy was actually done on Taiwan as well (although not by a Taiwanese). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Nobody cares about the strength of one's military, so long it exists. And no, they are not technically active in international diplomacy and they play in the Olympics as Taiwan, China. Their innovations in diplomacy is exaggerated. Maybe they have diplomacy with their 14 nations, but anything out of that is unofficial and more or less taken with a smaller grain of salt than Donald Trump's twitter adventures. Augend (drop a line) 18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thats just silly, Taiwan has diplomatic relations with the majority of nations on the planet. You cant dismiss them out of hand if reliable sources cover them, which they do[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] etc. The Olympics are a sporting event not a diplomatic one and your are technically incorrect about them being Taiwan, China at the olympics they are Chinese Taipei at the Olympics which is an agreed upon consensus title from a long time ago which explicitly does not say that they are “Taiwan, China." Please don’t use wikipedia to push your personal opinion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are the countries that recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state: Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland and Tuvalu.[28]

There are more than 170 nations that don't recognize Taiwan's sovereignty. They recognize it as part of China. The word country means "a sovereign state" but Taiwan is not a sovereign state according to 93% of the world. Saying it is a country is unneutral.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Defacto it could be considered that. Just my opinion here and in the end consensus will win the day. I don't have a strong view here but there is a distinction and trying to simply cover up the longstanding usage of Taiwanese to Chinese is a red flag for me, especially when you consider their president has even called this into some dispute as found here [[29]] . That in itself gives a distinction as a defacto country. I will let the rest of you sort it out though :) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• This was part of long drawn out argument years ago, I think an Rfc, where we were looking at country, sovereign state, and state. It was decided that "state" was the most neutral term that fit the situation. It is why it has longstanding stable consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that "state" is the most neutral term. Taiwan's sovereignty is disputed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's reasonable. I think noting the dispute and then a further explanation later in the article does the same thing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree. There is a parameter in {{Infobox country}} called |status=, we can use that parameter to say that it is not a member of the U.N. and that it is recognized by 14 countries. This is similar to State of Palestine.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Or we can just note the dispute as you said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In my view of the many responses I think it is better not to change the status of Taiwan, as a country that consider itself as a part of the Republic of China. And with the claim of sovereignty of the People's Republic of China as it is one of its own provinces, if this thing is going to apply on Taiwan; it should be applied also on Arunachal Pradesh. Which is classified as an Indian state that is supposed to be classified as a disputed area. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your understanding of international law is deeply flawed. If you open any textbook on international law it'll tell you that there are three conditions for statehood: a population, a territory and effective (sovereign) government of those two. In the Americas a fourth condition of being able to enter into relations with other states also exists. You can see this codified in article one of the Montevideo convention. Recognition by other states is not relevant. This is a very common mistake made by people with no understanding of the most basic principles of international law, but I would avise you to look into it as it might help you from repeating flawed arguments. Wikipedia articles are not sources. They are especially not sources of international law, so referring to them does not help your argument. Île flottante (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with saying that it is a country is that it makes it sound as if Wikipedia is siding with Taiwan against China's POV. I wouldn't say that I know much about international law but I know that there is a dispute between China and Taiwan over Taiwan's sovereignty. We should either say it is a "disputed state" or just let it as it is now (the longstanding version).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That's my point. A country can generally enter into agreements and maintain a functional international presence. Taiwan can't. Augend (drop a line) 21:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan absolutely can do those things. The fact that they have their own Defence Force and free elections is partial proof of that. There is actions politically from the PRC that makes people reluctant to do so but they still have allies or diplomatic relations with (14 I believe). I of course leave whether this should happen, shouldn't happen or the future up to them and the PRC. This is just the state of affairs now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are the countries that recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state: Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland and Tuvalu.[30]

There are more than 170 nations that don't recognize Taiwan's sovereignty. They recognize it as part of China. The word country means "a sovereign state" but Taiwan is not a sovereign state according to 93% of the world. Saying it is a country is unneutral.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Defacto it could be considered that. Just my opinion here and in the end consensus will win the day. I don't have a strong view here but there is a distinction and trying to simply cover up the longstanding usage of Taiwanese to Chinese is a red flag for me, especially when you consider their president has even called this into some dispute as found here [[31]] . That in itself gives a distinction as a defacto country. I will let the rest of you sort it out though :) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: - First, nice pun on the red flag, but yes, it is important to include that distinction. Personally, I feel that ethnially, excluding indigenous Taiwanese, culturally speaking, Chinese culture and Taiwanese culture are deeply connected. Augend (drop a line) 16:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Augend no doubt at all that they are very connected and closely related. I think the only key here which is solved both above and below is noting the dispute. We shouldn't be here to weigh in one way or another, just report it. This should include the dispute, and IMO Taiwan's public statements is what I use as a guideline to that. I don't really have anything more to add so I'll let everyone here figure it out. Just one voice to consensus and I don't mean to insult the PRC here or you, just my analysis of the situation. I didn't even think about the red flag and the Chinese flag, lol unintentional punnning! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• This was part of long drawn out argument years ago, I think an Rfc, where we were looking at country, sovereign state, and state. It was decided that "state" was the most neutral term that fit the situation. It is why it has longstanding stable consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that "state" is the most neutral term. Taiwan's sovereignty is disputed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's reasonable. I think noting the dispute and then a further explanation later in the article does the same thing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree. There is a parameter in {{Infobox country}} called |status=, we can use that parameter to say that it is not a member of the U.N. and that it is recognized by 14 countries. This is similar to State of Palestine.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Or we can just note the dispute as you said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In my view of the many responses I think it is better not to change the status of Taiwan, as a country that consider itself as a part of the Republic of China. And with the claim of sovereignty of the People's Republic of China as it is one of its own provinces, if this thing is going to apply on Taiwan; it should be applied also on Arunachal Pradesh. Which is classified as an Indian state that is supposed to be classified as a disputed area. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we stop talking about how much recognition Taiwan has? Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If it is commonly referred to as a state, that's what we write. Ythlev (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No, according to 93% of the world, Taiwan is part of China.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No source for your claim. And 93% of what? Have you interviewed 6.5 billion people? Ythlev (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

If I read this right, the consensus is to label this a "state" and note the dispute about sovereignty? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. That's the longstanding wording and it is what is considered neutral. I think we should remove " neighbouring countries" thing as it implies that Taiwan is a sovereign state when 93% of the world says it is part of China. We should note the dispute.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing neighboring countries is just political rather than informative, objectively it would make Wikipedia worse so I think we should avoid it. Taiwan/ROC also has real neighborly relations with their neighbors, the conflicts they’ve had with China, the Philippines, and Japan over fisheries and undersea resources don’t just go away because their sovereignty is disputed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Also just on a technical note 93% of the world does not say they’re part of China, many states recognize the PRC as the only China but they maintain relations with Taiwan. If the US or European countries considered Taiwan to be part of the PRC then they couldn’t sell it the weapons they do because selling weapons to the PRC is illegal in both the USA and the EU. Its one of the great catch-22s of international relations. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Lets discuss one issue at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add “disputed” before State. I have no issue keeping it as state but I vehemently oppose the introduction of a pseudolegal term which serves no point other than to further pro-CCP POVs on Wikipedia. Île flottante (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Also two of the sources do not support the statement, e.g. "Taiwan is not generally considered a state.". Ythlev (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus on whether it should be state or country. Can somebody share sources that refer to Taiwan as a state? I have yet to find a single article or reputable source. "Not a country" semantics smells oddly of censorship / pro PRC bias.

• Every kind of English media from very western (WSJ, BBC, FT) to al-jazeera and the hindu refer to Taiwan as a country. So this isn't a matter of Eurocentrism/Americanism.
• Taiwanese diplomatic officials refer to themselves as a country.
• The Chinese language article refers to it as a country (國家).
• They have a powerful military and complete de-facto sovereignty over their territory as per the definition of the word sovereignty (supreme power especially over a body politic). Their sovereignty is disputed but they are de-facto sovereign.
• Articles that refer to Taiwan as a country: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/taiwans-coronavirus-protocol-shows-how-it-is-done/article31484681.ece, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/29/world-health-organization-who-battleground-trump-taiwan-china/, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/philippines-backs-demand-taiwan-deport-worker-200430034037892.html, https://www.npr.org/2020/04/29/847308433/taiwans-coronavirus-moment-and-delicate-balancing-act, https://www.ft.com/content/6716fd83-6ac1-4219-bf1b-da1e04814289, https://www.foxnews.com/world/taiwan-shows-up-china-coronavirus-supplies, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/10/china-says-taiwan-attacks-on-who-are-venomous-aimed-at-independence.html, https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/no-taiwans-president-isnt-pro-independence/. Defaulting to "state" also makes it seem to the average reader that it is at the same level as the states in the United States which it is not. Finally, look at the number of occurrences of the word 'country' in the renaming debate when this was moved from Republic of China to Taiwan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan/Archive_20.
• Using the term "state" just makes the article confusing to read. Why don't we write like every other english language source I can find? The only places that don't refer to it as a country are places like XinHua.

User:Stephen Balaban - 09:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Rearrangement of the first paragraph

• I have made a very small move in the lede paragraph and I think this move has improved the article's lead

Here is how it was before the move:

Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia. Neighbouring states include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the north-west, Japan to the north-east, and the Philippines to the south. The island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third, where its highly urbanised population is concentrated. Taipei is the capital and largest metropolitan area. Other major cities include Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan and Taoyuan. With 23.7 million inhabitants, Taiwan is among the most densely populated states, and is the most populous state and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN).

Here is how it become:

Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia. The island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third, where its highly urbanised population is concentrated. Taipei is the capital and largest metropolitan area. Other major cities include Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan and Taoyuan. Neighbouring states include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the north-west, Japan to the north-east, and the Philippines to the south. With 23.7 million inhabitants, Taiwan is among the most densely populated states, and is the most populous state and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN).

I didnt change anything. I just moved that sentence because thats how I think all "countries" or "states" are written. The borders are not at the very beginning.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that edit SharabSalam, that definitely improves readability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It does leave the last sentence of the paragraph curiously isolated, though. Perhaps swap the last two sentences, or move the last one after the first sentence? Kanguole 20:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Its location is more important so it should be near the beginning. Ythlev (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to work for me. I'm still on the fence about using the PRC as that may incite further dispute from Chinese/Taiwanese readers but at the moment it seems okay. Augend (drop a line) 06:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to be concerned about what Chinese/Taiwanese readers think because Wikipedia is not censored. Rather than worrying about what readers might think, we should focus on what's factually correct. The de facto reality is that the subject of the article, regardless of whether you want to call it "Taiwan" or whether you want to call it "ROC", borders the PRC to the west, and the article already clearly mentions in great detail that there are de jure complications regarding political status. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Taiwan, "country" or "state"

There has been much debate and no consensus formed over whether to use the term "country" or "state" when referring to Taiwan. User:Stephen Balaban - 09:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Taiwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The actual article is currently edit locked until May 24th. Let's continue discussion and have a goal of establishing editor consensus by May 24th, and then close the RfC.

• Comment It could be either, depending on which definition is used. Some qualification is required however, since its legitimacy is disputed. As with the articles on Northern Cyprus and Republic of Artsakh, I think that we should say de facto state. TFD (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Those two articles actually make rather different statements while using similar language, one says "de facto sovereign state” and the other says "breakaway de facto state.” We could theoretically describe Taiwan as the first but not the second as they aren’t breakaway. Taiwan is also on a different level size and power wise than those guys, its 100x bigger than N. Cyprus or Artsakh as well as being much older and more widely recognized. A better comparison is North Korea (I know that sounds weird but they have near identical populations, inhabit the same region of the world, are the subject of a national unification movement, and are both pariah states). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Taiwan has a functional unicameral parliament, defined borders, immigration and customs control, an economy on par with other OECD nations, universal healthcare (which the USA doesn't even have), its own currency, its own modern army, its own modern navy, its own modern air force, a former nuclear weapons program, its own passport, its own internet TLD and telephone country code, its own postal service. These are many things that actual "disputed states" like the State of Palestine, Northern Cyprus and Donetsk People's Republic are lacking in some combination or another. We really need to stop pretending on Wikipedia that a country like Taiwan is somehow equivalent to actual disputed states. Taiwan is able exert much more economic, military and political force than Palestine can ever dream of as of this current day. Like you said, a much better comparison would be to North Korea. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Taiwan’s passport is also more powerful than the PRC’s [32]... Taiwan’s passport allows visa free travel to 134 nations while China’s only allows visa free travel to 80. Kind of throws a wrench in the whole “93% of the world doesn't recognize the existence of Taiwan as a country” thing for all practical purposes. Got to say the level of genuine ignorance about Taiwan is mind-blowing sometimes. For reference North Korea’s passport offers visa free access to 49 countries. Lol just read your own spiel about passports, sorry for the redundancy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not going to happen. Ythlev (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, given that neither of those words has a single agreed upon meaning this seems like a exercise in futility... And I say that as someone with an IR degree. In certain contexts Taiwan could be both of those or neither of them, it all comes down to framing and which Polis-Sci theorists we’re going to choose to be our “wikipedia official” theorists which to my knowledge is something that has never been done nor can we really do it. Reliable sources call them both a country and a state, sometimes in the same article. Why do you think that Wikipedia will be able to come to a consensus on one of the great IR questions of our time when the real world hasn’t/can’t? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• State - this longstanding consensus driven usage works best. It was Sovereign State at times before but the term "state" was determined to best fit the situation. Country means different things in other English speaking areas of the world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see where there is consensus on the word "state" over "country", I see edit wars in the history tab. What is the definition of "country" that is used in other English speaking parts of the world? User:Stephen Balaban 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  It's happened several times. One such discussion that ended in state is here. There are far too many problems with the word country have multiple meanings in English. The last several discussions have led to the most stable first sentence it has ever had. Non-capitalized "state" with no modifiers to cause even more problems. Why would anyone want to open up the silly can of worms when we've had pretty good stability for so long? There will always be those who disagree strongly one way or the other but "state" has worked as a compromise pretty darned well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Just because we've had relative stability doesn't mean we should perpetually kick the can down the road to visit at a later time. This is an open issue that'll require resolution sooner or later; why not start now? It's been eight years since the 2012 article move, we've already had enough time to let the dust settle. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  It's not kicking the can down the road. There are reasons why some want "sovereign state" some want "State" some want "state" and some want "country." When it was looked at in the past the best choice on balance, on stability, on compromise, on dictionary meaning, and on English usage in all English speaking nations, was to use "state." That is why it has been stable for so long... most readers and editors find it their first or second choice and not their last choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, feel free to add to this list of reliable sources that refer to Taiwan as a "country" and a list of reliable sources that refer to Taiwan as a "state". It seems like "state" is a word that is rarely ever used to refer to Taiwan. The divide certainly seems to fall on the PRC POV = "not a country / province / part of PRC" and the ROC POV = "independent country / sovereign state / independent state / not part of PRC". Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state and is widely referred to as a country by many reputable sources. There is not going to be unanimous consensus on this because of the inherent politics involved but I think it's confusing for Wikipedia readers for editors to decide to refer to Taiwan as a "state" and then be forced to refer to all other countries as "states" to maintain internal consistency within the article and project. Nobody refers to PRC as a state, why does this article? User:Stephen Balaban 20:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Source List Tag [DD9GA];

  Taiwan referred to as "country": [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]

  Taiwan referred to as "state”: [54]

  Taiwan referred to both as "country" and "state":

  Taiwan referred to as "independent country", "independent state", or "sovereign state": [55]

  Taiwan referred to as "not a state": [56]

  Taiwan referred to as "not a country" and "sovereign country" in the same article: [57]

  Taiwan referred to as neither "country" or "state" but as “self-ruled”:[58][59][60]

  Just “Taiwan":[61][62][63][64][65][66][67]

  Taiwan referred to as an “island” (outside of the explicitly geographical sense):[68][69][70][71]

  Taiwan referred to as a “nation" or "island nation": [72][73]

  Taiwan referred to as an “independent republic":[74]

• de facto state per what TDF said. The sovereignty of Taiwan is disputed by 93% of the world U.N. countries.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

UN countries are not WP:RS though, for our purposes they’re irrelevant. TBH I thought there wouldn't be as clear a media consensus as there does actually appear to be consensus among WP:RS to call them “country." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The argument that "the sovereignty of Taiwan is disputed by 93% of the world U.N. countries" is extremely weak, because it oversimplifies international politics and ignores many important intricacies that exist beneath the surface.

Take western countries such as the United States and its allies, for example. Western countries not officially recognising Taiwan is more of a formality than anything else, they need to maintain decent relations with China given that they represent one sixth of global population. In reality, it's a little bit more complicated than that, and most countries continue to de facto deal with Taiwan on a country-to-country basis, but play around with their words in a game of pretend.

A Taiwanese passport can get you visa-free (or visa-on-arrival) entry into 149 countries, including the United States, Canada, European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. By comparison, a Chinese passport only has visa-free access to 71 countries, most of them in Africa and Central Asia. If western countries didn't have healthy de facto country-to-country relations with Taiwan, would this be possible?

As a key producer of semiconductors, Taiwan continues to de facto trade with the majority of countries in the world, including countries that allegedly do not recognise the existence of Taiwan. Taiwan can manufacture computer components that China lacks the ability to make (even the China Daily, official English language mouthpiece of the Community Party of China, admits this); there are only three companies in the world that can manufacture high-end semiconductors: TSMC (Taiwan), Intel Corporation (United States) and Samsung (South Korea); down-the-line companies such as AMD, nVidia, Apple and Huawei get 100% of their high-end chips from TSMC and Samsung. Conversely, Taiwan also de facto purchases billions of dollars worth of military weaponry and equipment from the United States, including F-16V fighters, M1 Abrams tanks, and Kidd-class destroyers, despite not being officially recognised by the US. Would any of this even be possible if Taiwan wasn't a de facto country with de facto relations with other countries (that allegedly don't recognise it)?

Long story short, countries de facto recognise the de facto existence of Taiwan as a country in reality, while playing roundabout mind games to appease the PRC. Membership of the United Nations, and official diplomatic recognition by UN countries, are not useful indicators of whether a country is sovereign or not. In Wikipedia, we should be representing the factual circumstances of things, and in some cases the facts will stray from official government positions. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• State. I mean, they're really the same thing, but state sounds more academic. Ythlev (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yet nobody in academia refers to Taiwan as a state they refer to it as a country: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Taiwan+other+countries can you point to any sources reliable or encyclopedic that do not refer to Taiwan as a country? User:Stephen Balaban 23:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I meant the word. And yes there are. Check out the article. Ythlev (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country. Every available source refers to Taiwan as a country. Yes it’s disputed by PRC. Yes, PRC has a position in the UN Security Council. But Wikipedia articles should have NPOV and be in line with reliable sources in how it refers to political entities. User:Stephen Balaban 23:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country as a first choice, sovereign state (and not merely "state") as a second backdrop. While I understand the original intentions of the editors establishing consensus back in 2012 of using "state" as a concise and unbiased way to refer to a sovereign state polity (and they're not wrong, by the way), the reality of the situation is that the majority of English-speaking readers without technical background knowledge often confuse the two concepts of a state as a polity (i.e. France, Germany, Republic of Korea), and a state as an administrative subdivision (i.e. Missouri, Queensland, Arunachal Pradesh). This is evident by the numerous talk page threads raised between 2012 and 2018 by confused editors asking why Taiwan is a "state" like California or New York. Switching to the phrasing of "country", or making the phrasing more precise by including "sovereign", would undoubtedly alleviate this confusion amongst readers. While semantically there is a slight technical difference between the concepts of country, nation and sovereign state, again, in reality, the majority of laypersons use these three terms interchangeably, and this is demonstrated by third-party reliable sources such as CNN, BBC and Reuters who also use these three terms interchangeably. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Most reliable sources use it, and it’s widely understood by the general public who are, after all, our primary target audience. Phlar (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Reasoning per Benlisquare and Phlar. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Earlier I didn't think that there would be a clear consensus in WP:RS usage and we would have to get nitty gritty with theorists and dueling papers. I was wrong, there is clear consensus among WP:RS to call Taiwan a country. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• de facto state or de facto sovereign state, followed by state. None of the sources under Taiwan referred to as a "country" above are considered scholarly sources that would meet similar criteria that exist for WP:MEDRS. Even the "layperson" BBC cited above opens with China sees Taiwan as a breakaway province that will eventually be part of the country again, but many Taiwanese want a separate nation.. The CNBC source above also only mentions "country" in a passing quotation or in the context of the ROC, e.g. President Tsai Ing-wen says they are already an independent country called the Republic of China, its official name. The Diplomat also notes that Tsai and other officials also make that distinction. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: when you find a source in the wrong category don’t delete it, move it to the appropriate category. Deleting it outright violates talk page etiquette. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS exists because there has been over 15 years worth of collaboration, discussion, and consensus building on Wikipedia amongst editors specialising in medical-related topics, which has slowly built up what we see as the resulting guideline today. A comparison with WP:MEDRS is a false equivalence because an analogue for international relations articles does not exist. If you feel that a WP:MEDRS equivalent set of guidelines is required for the topic of international relations on Wikipedia, consider starting off community-wide discussions to establish consensus on how the guideline should be written. Otherwise, what you're suggesting isn't actually held up by the community of contributors in the same manner WP:MEDRS is. Based on current precedent, the sources you have mentioned above fall within the green category on WP:RSP, meaning that unless there are unambiguous factual inaccuracies in those references, their use doesn't fall outside of WP:RS policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Taiwan vs. Republic of China It's worth noting that Taiwan, according to its constitution, is a province of China and it has not declared independence. It's government was the remnant of the government of the Republic of China which claimed mainland China. So there is no source that Taiwan is a de jure state. TFD (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you could say that that constitution is the source for its statehood, but that the common name for the state has changed in response to the reduction in effective territory. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Why does a constitution written by a bunch of Mainland Chinese men (not Taiwanese) on the mainland of China in 1947 matter, and how does this constitution represent reality? What about the 1991 and 2005 amendments to the constitution which de facto recognise "Taiwan" (in legalese designated as the "Free area of the Republic of China") as a distinct political entity to the mainland? What about the ROC President's numerous and repeated remarks since 2016 that her administration considers the ROC/Taiwan to be "already an independent country" to China, and therefore does not need to "declare independence"? Why does Taiwan need to declare independence from the PRC (established in 1949) when the PRC has never been to Taiwan (brief United States occupation, followed by ROC administration commencing on October 25, 1945)?

Many portions of the ROC constitution are vestigial organs of ROC governance, and the name of the country has not been amended for a very good reason: the Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China codifies into law that any official constitutional amendment to change the name of the country to "Republic of Taiwan" is casus belli for military invasion. In reality (aka de facto), ROC (Taiwan) is already an independent entity to the PRC; officially establishing this reality into de jure law would risk war, so what would be the benefit in doing so? Arguing that "well actually, the law says otherwise" has many logical flaws if you conveniently choose to ignore the context behind those laws. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

One additional thing I should mention: You know that 1947 constitution you're talking about? Did you know that it claims Mongolia as the de jure territory of Taiwan? In reality, though, Taiwan has de facto officially recognised Mongolia as a real country in 2002 under the administration of president Chen Shui-bian. Taiwan and Mongolia now officially have healthy and normal country-to-country relations, with free flow of tourists and students, alongside plenty of economic trade, and the ROC constitution has still not been amended to reflect this fact (because doing so would mean that China is legally obligated to invade). Why was establishing diplomatic relations with Mongolia not so difficult, unlike mainland China? It's because Mongolia doesn't have 2,500 short range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan, unlike a certain other country. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't have explained it better. The government of Taiwan considers itself to be part of the country of China, not a country in itself. China and every other country in the world also recognize Taiwan as a province of China. So it is de jure part of China and de facto a self-governing state. The OR about the Montevideo Convention should be ignored because it is only one of the theories of statehood and is a guideline to help experts determine what is a state but is not definitive. It was an agreement between the U.S. and Latin American states in the 1930s, not a UN convention. TFD (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you think benlisquare’s comment here supports your position you don’t undsertand what they said. Can you also chill with the massive unsupported statements like "The government of Taiwan considers itself to be part of the country of China, not a country in itself.” while complaining about OR? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The government of Taiwan considers itself to be part of the country of China, not a country in itself. - Officially, both in practice and in policy, not since 2016 when the administration of president Tsai Ing-wen made it the official government stance to reject the 1992 Consensus, as I've mentioned. Even prior to that, Taiwan has ceased to actively pursue its territorial claims to mainland China and Mongolia during the presidential administration of Lee Teng-hui, they just didn't make it an official stance at the time. The Sinophilic old guard from the generation of Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo with their rosy dreams of militarily retaking mainland China by force? They're either all dead, or 80 year old men withering away in nursing homes. They do not represent the present, nor the future, of Taiwan. I'm not sure how you've managed to read between my lines to come to that conclusion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR, see the article in The Atlantic: "The ROC constitution, meanwhile, still claims Taiwan, China, Mongolia, and the entire South China Sea as its territory."[75] Whether or not the current government holds that position, it has been unable or unwilling to change the law, hence use of the term de jure, which is Latin for by law. On the other hand, de facto means "in fact:" "practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws." TFD (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Law =/= Constitution, but I'l focus on the argument not the errors. Can you tell me why ROC/Taiwan hasn't changed their constitution? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're saying disequals constitution, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. TFD (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Does not equal, not “disequals” which is not a word in the english language. Answer the question. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to ask rhetorical questions, this is not a debating club. If you want to make a point about why the Republic of China has not changed its constitution, just say it and what relevance it has to whatever point you are trying to make. TFD (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Healthy debate/discussion is important to establishing consensus, as we already appear to have done so I will digress. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Even whether the constitution claims authority over all of China is under dispute. The constitution merely says the territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries. Some legislators argued that mainland China is not included in the "existing national boundaries" mentioned in the constitution, and asked the Judicial Yuan, who has legal power to interpret the Constitution, to clarify this issue. The judical yuan denied to interpret what "existing national boundaries" include, saying this is a significant political question and beyond the reach of judicial review. The dispute has not yet been resolved since then.[76]--Visaliaw (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment common name is a title policy. It has nothing to do with the content. And as CaradhrasAiguo pointed out above, sources don't call it a country. And even as a title, the COMMONNAME says Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered.

Saying it is a country is saying that it is a de jure state.

Taiwan is only considered as a sovereign state by 13 countries. The rest of the world doesn't recognize Taiwan's sovereignty. That's 93% of the world. It is not a member of the U.N.. Taiwan is a de facto state not a de jure state.[77] It's status is worse than Kosovo. We should provide accurate information. The common name argument is irrelevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Saying it is a country is saying that it is a de jure state." Really? I bet a lot of people in Scotland would be glad to hear that, as Scotland is often called a country but recently failed to become a sovereign state of its own. --Khajidha (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That's another definition. Scotland has a distinct ethnicity and was a sovereign state before it was merged with England. Taiwan was a province of China. No one referred to West Berlin as a country when it was a separate political unit not part of either of the two Germanies. TFD (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

My point still stands. You cannot make an unequivocal statement that "country" means something if there are cases where it explicitly doesn't mean that. The fact that Taiwan's history is different from Scotland's is not relevant to the point. West Berlin is even less relevant. --Khajidha (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan was a part of the Japanese Empire not a province of China before they were merged with the ROC against the will of the inhabitants at the end of WWII. Scotland also doesn't have a distinct ethnicity any more than Taiwan does, both are primarily inhabited by people who do not share the majority of their heritage with the people who inhabited their lands 2,000 years before them. Also just FYI the merger of Scotland and England happened in 1707 (and they were ruled by the English from 1603)... So Scotland was a sovereign state (even though the definition didnt exist and cant really be applied in hindsight) 400+ years ago, not so sure what your point is. You seem to be making a lot of historical and logical errors in your arguments. Also just FYI West Berlin was administered both formally and informally by West Germany and was for legal purposes considered part of West Germany. I know of no such power who effects similar administration of Taiwan except the Taiwanese Government. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

[Very off topic, but the Scots were not ruled by the English from 1603. The Scottish King inherited the English throne in 1603, but the states remained separate (very, they fought wars even) until 1707.] Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You’re right, I should have said Scottish sovereignty became truly disputed in 1603. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Also FYI the Japanese were the first to control the entire island of Taiwan, none of the previous colonial or indigenous powers had ever controlled the entirety (or even the majority) of the island before the Japanese. Most of Taiwan by area was controlled by Taiwanese indigenous peoples up until about 1900, so they beat the Scots in the global game of “resist the foreign invaders" by a full 300 years. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Taiwan became a province (de jure and de facto) of the Republic of China upon its annexation and is considered a province under the constitution of the republic. However, the government of the Republic of China lost control of the mainland and in 1971, the United Nations recognized the Peoples's Republic of China as the sole national government of mainland China and Taiwan. So neither the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China, the local government of Taiwan, or the countries that recognize one or the other of the competing claims consider it to be a sovereign state. TFD (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"So neither the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China, the local government of Taiwan, or the countries that recognize one or the other of the competing claims consider it to be a sovereign state." This bears a distinct resemblance to the fecal matter of an adult male bovine. It is splitting hairs over the common name. The constitution of the Republic of China declares that it is a sovereign state. Those countries that recognize the ROC consider it a sovereign state. The fact that said state is commonly called Taiwan instead of China is irrelevant to that fact. --Khajidha (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I respect your right to make any argument you want but thats just not true. I’m particularly confused by your assertion that the Republic of China and the "local government of Taiwan” are currently separate entities which agree that Taiwan is not a sovereign state. Can you explain whats leads you to believe this? Also just FYI any argument from the ROC constitution is a nonstarter for you, if it has a valid constitution its a state and a country and if its not either of those it doesn't have a valid constitution so its irrelevant. Pick one, you’re doing whatever is most convenient for your argument, not what is logically consistent. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were two different things. The government of the Republic of China claims authority over all of China but de facto exercises local control over Taiwan only. Frank Chiang, who is an expert in U.S. - Taiwan - China relations, phrases it better: "Taiwan is not a state because there is no government constituting the government of the state of Taiwan. Although there is a governing authority in Taiwan -- the ROC government -- it is a government of China in exile." ("Sadly, Taiwan is still not a state" Taipei Times, 2005). TFD (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thats from a *2005* Taipei Times *editorial.* Here is an equally authoritative opinion (that of a senior Taiwanese legislator) found in an article published in the Taiwan News yesterday: "Taiwan acknowledges the existence of the People’s Republic of China and its sovereignty over the areas it controls, while the Taiwanese government has authority over its main island and Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, as well as their adjacent territorial waters and airspace.” Taiwan does not appear to lay claim to the entirety of China anymore. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: This RFC discussion has nothing to do with the title of the article, it is about whether the wording of the lead paragraph should use the term "state" or "country" to describe the political entity; discussion regarding whether Taiwan or Republic of China is the WP:COMMONNAME is off-topic. Nobody here has even mentioned the WP:COMMONNAME policy until you brought it up. If you have objections to the name of the article being Taiwan, consider raising a separate WP:RM discussion to Republic of China; otherwise, you are merely detracting from the discussion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the state/country/island/entity/blob/sweet potato’s common name was settled more than a decade ago as Taiwan and there still appears to be no contest[78]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A little late, but while re-reading older discussion, this particular claim caught my eye: It's status is worse than Kosovo. This dubious claim couldn't be any further from the truth; Kosovo passport holders have visa-free access to 41 countries, which is even less than Chinese (PRC) passport holders, let alone Taiwan; there are a significant number of sub-Saharan African nations with more travel rights bestowed upon their citizens compared to Kosovo. Again, comparing the two is the utter epitome of apple/orange comparisons, the claim simply doesn't make sense. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - One of the reasons in past discussions and RfCs that it was settled on the now long-standing "state" was because of the various definitions among English speaking nations. We have talked about states, States, sovereign states, nations, nation-states, countries, etc. Most had problems fitting in the Taiwan situation.

  With a sovereign state we needed a state with its own institutions and populations that has a permanent population, territory, and government. It needs an internationally recognized government that provides public services and police power and has the right to make treaties, wage war, and take other actions on behalf of its people. No other state should have power over the country's territory.

  With a nation we needed a large group of people who inhabit a specific territory and are connected by history, culture, or another common items. Places like Sicily, Catalonia, and Quebec.

  With a nation-state we had to be show a cultural group (a nation) that is also a state or a sovereign state. Iceland or Japan.

  To be a state it needed to be a territory with its own institutions and populations. Greenland, England. It could also be geographic sections of sovereign states, like California or Tasmania.

  Country has all kinds of meanings from a state, a sovereign state, or nation-state. Usually it's a sovereign state but you also run into places like wine country. The UK uses the term country to define England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

  All of these have some issues with the special case of Taiwan, and no matter what one you chose you'll find unhappy editors bent on removing the term. Viewpoints run deep on this issue. The term state was determined to be the most all-encompassing, safest, term to use that would see the least amount of edit-wars. I do think it achieved that purpose. It can certainly be changed to country but I see it as having nowhere near the stability that "state" has had, especially when places such as the United States look at country=sovereign state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t necessarily agree with your definitions but if you want to use those then Taiwan is a sovereign state, it checks all those boxes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that adding qualifiers like "sovereign state" is a bad idea especially when the sovereignty is in dispute by the PRC. Of course Taiwan is clearly de facto sovereign but that's another story. One important thing to remember is that some of these "unhappy editors" are trying to push a certain POV (whether it's PRC or ROC). I think the main point with opening this RfC is to answer the question: "Why does wikipedia seem to use a different term to describe Taiwan than every other mainstream English-language reliable source?" User:Stephen Balaban 07:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Take no action here. The distinction between a "country" and a "state" which this discussion is trying to clarify is not meaningful to, or is likely to be misunderstood by, many speakers of American English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The same applies to British English. The overlap between the words "country" and "state" is greater than their distinction. We should simply acknowledge that the world is messy and not all territories or regimes fit into simply defined categories. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country or simply state. Adding de facto is an unnecessary and incorrect use of a Latin expression. A state cannot exist de facto because once the factual conditions of statehood are met (population, territory and effective government), it is a de jure state. It would be akin to describing the Sun as being a de facto star: it's just a star. Calls to add de facto reflect a misunderstanding on behalf of many users of what the word state means. Île flottante (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country - Agree with Benlisquare. Country can be applied as a neutral and non-ambiguous word here. Jediting1 (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Summary of Opinions So far I've counted the following opinions: country 7, (state or no action) 2, de facto state 2. Could people in the state / de facto state / sovereign state camps please post reliable sources that refer to Taiwan as a state / de facto state? You can edit the list located at tag [DD9GA]. There are many more reliable sources that use the term country, please add some that refer to it as a state. Stephen Balaban 17:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I suppose you're counting me in the "state or no action" group, but I just can't make sense of what we are disputing here. Is France a country? Yes. Is France a state? Yes. Is France a sovereign state? Yes. So being a state does not preclude being a country, and vice versa. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The discussion isn't aiming to debate what Taiwan is, because that would be an extremely subjective and open-ended question with no real answer. The question being asked is what word should be used within the lead paragraph of this article - "country", "state", or (other); as far as I'm concerned, it's a pretty binary (or ternary) question. We've had eight years to come up with a consensus on what wording to use, and still have not been able to, hence why this discussion is taking place. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

China opposes X Taiwan Opposed Y, so we need Z. Trying to not treat this as my inclination wants to why not "realm"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

China and Taiwan should not determine what words the English language can use. --Khajidha (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the problem is where I come from they are more or less synonymous. So there is not one I have a preference for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• As I said lat time this is just semantics (polite version).Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Agree with Benlisquare that this is clearer to readers, and it's a neutral term to use which is backed by a majority of sources. the wub "?!" 15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. As Benlisquare points out, "state" leads to confusion with the American governmental structure. I do not think the distinction de facto vs de jure is meaningful or helpful here. And it seems to be what the sources call it. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Island country I looked at some other cases to see what they had:

Cuba – country

Cyprus – island country

Ireland – island

New Zealand – sovereign island country

Singapore – sovereign city state and island country

Sri Lanka – island country

United Kingdom – sovereign country

All of these places have a unique history and all were part of some larger polity at some time in their history. While there is no uniform pattern, the word "state" gets almost no usage and the phrase "island country" is most common. Its usage in this case too seems quite reasonable. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson:, just a quick note, you have linked the wrong page for Ireland. That is the page for the entire island called Ireland, and not the page for the country called Ireland. The page for the country is here: Republic of Ireland, where it is described as a country. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country or Island Country I found these the most in the sources I found. There were, of course, sources that listed it as a state of East Asia, however a fair majority of them are either based on, or copied verbatim off of Wikipedia's current definition. —dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 02:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country or sovereign state. It is not a state of a larger country as some like to imply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Since 1) this is how other entities (Japan, Mainland China, etc.) are called. Granted, it is a "mostly unrecognized state/country". Note the Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states that is subcategory to both Category:Countries by status and Category:States with limited recognition. Anyway, 2) on official English page/[79], it refers to itself as a "country", but also as a "state" [80]. But count gives only one instance of state as self-reference, compared to 5-6 for country. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Strong agreement with Benlisquare's points. NomadicNom (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country or sovereign state because governments aren't RSes. It doesn't matter how many countries officially recognize Taiwan, it matters what the best reliable sources say, and they treat Taiwan as a country or sovereign state. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• largely unrecognized state - it actually does matter what other states say, in fact for whether or not a state is a state they matter most. A state is a state when other states say it is a state is the most readily understood phrasing I have seen. Would also add claims sovereignty over the territory of the PRC and exercises sovereignty over the island of Taiwan. nableezy - 00:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  The problem is sourcing. Almost all sources use "country." By definition it is simply a state, since country can mean anything in all the different English variations and usually means "sovereign state", but sourcing Taiwan as a "state" is a big problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• country everyone but the PRC and those who feel the need to defer to them seems to consider it a country; they have their reasons, but their reasons are irrelevant to Wikipedia . Taiwan acts as an independent country in all respects, and is referred to by neutral observers as such. DGG ( talk ) 11:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Taiwan is a country by any reasonable definition, and reliable sources describe it as such. If the PRC disagree that's their prerogative, but Wikipedia is not bound by their claim. Although other countries have withheld de jure recognition of Taiwan, they've given it de facto recognition by maintaining diplomatic relations, embassies (even if they're called something else), granting it membership (or something equivalent to membership by another name) of international organisations etc. Modest Genius ^talk 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country Taiwan (ROC) has its own government, currency, passport, military, and economy. It has strong unofficial diplomatic and economic ties with all major countries in the world through de facto embassies (a.k.a. representative offices) and trade. It continues to have formal ties with 15 sovereign states. Unlike Macau or Hong Kong, the Taiwanese government is not under the jurisdiction of the PRC government and freely conducts its own governance of Taiwan. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country It is officially recognized by 15 states, it has its own immigration, currency, identity, democracy, etc. etc. all associated with a nation state, and de-facto it operates as a country. Kenji1987 (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country Despite not being recognized by a majority of other countries, I'd agree with Kenji1987, and numerous others here. Taiwan has all the aspects of a country mentioned above, and should be referred to as such. –NorthwestPassage ^talk 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• State. While Taiwan looks like a country in all aspects, it is still politically a province of China. Now many people dispute this, so since a state represents a political entity, I believe it is better to refer to Taiwan as a state. This acknowledges the political self-governance of Taiwan while at the same time remains politically correct. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

State is not equal to province. Acknowledging Taiwan as a state is not equal to acknowledging Taiwan as a province of China. An independent nation can be referred to as a state. More appropriately, state is a synonym of government. We sometimes say "Member states of the EU". This doesn't mean England and Germany are provinces of the European Union; rather, this means that England and Germany have their own governments. The same can be applied to Taiwan. As a Chinese, we refer to Guangdong as "Guangdong Province", never as "Guangdong State". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that a country is largely synonymous with a state: "A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state," (from article on country) and "[state] referring to an organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory." No doubt Taiwan is exhibiting sovereignty over its land; hence it is a state. Is it a country? Disputed. Is it a state (does it have control over its own land)? I find it pretty hard to dispute this statement. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually "country" is largely synonymous with "sovereign state", which Taiwan is not. That has always been the problem with the nomenclature we use here. What is most used in sourcing deviates from the actual definition. Hence the quandary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Scotland is referred to as a country, sometimes even a nation, while not being sovereign. "State", "country", and "nation" are all the same thing, none of which have universal definitions. Ythlev (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Country gets multiple vague definitions as I had said previously. England, Scotland, and Wales are often called countries in British English. But State, country, and nation are certainly not the same thing at all per standard definitions. But the term country is mostly used to describe a sovereign state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What are the "standard definitions" exactly? And how is it that English of Britain, where it originated, is not standard? Ythlev (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of that was discussed previously at this comment. Why isn't British English used as a definition throughout the world? That's what your asking? I have no idea. If you go by that reasoning Taiwan usually uses American English. In my PolySci classes we had different definitions for state, sovereign state, nation, and country. Country was the most frowned upon because of it's vagueness and many meanings. Sort of like you have turkey vultures, black vultures, and condors, but they also get a commonly used term of buzzards. Country was like buzzards in my classes... used a lot but vague and less precise. Maybe a lot because in British English country gets used for England and Scotland while the sovereign state is the UK. There are many complexities is usage even within the same geographical area, and from country to country it's even worse. It doesn't bother me one bit if this article changes from state to country, nation, or even sovereign state since Wikipedia works in mysterious consensus ways. I was only pointing out that sources and definitions differ in this case, and that I think "state" fits Taiwan best and has been the most stable term used on Wikipedia. Other articles will change if we change the terminology here. That's fine, but it's why I listed this rfc at Wikipedia centralized discussion so we could get a better amalgam of eyes on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Country was like buzzards in my classes... used a lot but vague and less precise. This contradicts what you said that "country" is largely synonymous with "sovereign state". If we are going with common usage, the word "state" usually refers to a US state. I agree that we should "state", but I think your reasoning is a bit weird. Ythlev (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Not quite as i was summarizing a previous discussion. In class it was frowned upon because of it's vagueness and buzzard-like equivalence. But when it is used in the context of what is likely to happen here, it far and away tends to be interpreted as "Sovereign State" rather than just "state." It is why I thought it would create more problems in maintaining the article from vandalism even though it is more readily sourcable. In the US, state more readily means a US state. Not in the rest of the English speaking world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion Taiwan isn't a nation by any reasonable standard. Hence a country is practically equal to a state, but calling it a country generates more controversy. State is the less controversial synonym for country. IMO this is not a political discussion; we are not arguing country vs. province. A state is very similar to a country in terms of definition, but the word state is more neutral in this respect. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 04:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on pre-existing precedent on Wikipedia, we refer to Israel, Singapore, North Korea, South Korea, United Kingdom and South Sudan as countries within the lead paragraph rather than states; all of these meet your usual definitions of states. To make Taiwan the exception would be a double standard, and thus even more of a WP:NPOV violation. The argument that using state would be more neutral becomes a moot point unless there is a consensus-based Wikipedia-wide shift to change the wording of every single sovereign state article's lead paragraph from "country" to "state". Furthermore, if you are concerned about neutrality in regards to the One China issue, then would you be in favour of changing the lead paragraph of China to use "state" instead of "country"? Why is the People's Republic of China allowed to be called a country, instead of a state? --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Singapore, UK, North/South Korea's independence is universally accepted. However, Taiwan independence is not universally accepted, Even among the Taiwanese, from last year's election over 40% Taiwanese voted for Han Kuo-Yu, opponents of the independence movement. There is little global consensus over whether Taiwan can be considered a country, but I guess by nearly all standards Taiwan can always be called a state. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 05:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is "little global consensus over whether Taiwan can be considered a country", then can you explain why the overwhelming majority of English-language news media publications refer to Taiwan as a country, and not as a state? --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Because "country" is plain English and a more common word whereas "state" is more academic. I think using the academic word encourages readers to learn more about the topic. Ythlev (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) putting English aside, how many of these sources come from America or the EU? English language speakers account for just about a billion people, barely more than Chinese speakers. America and many EU countries (esp. America from 2016 up till the present) are biased against China, and hence many of these sources bias against the PRC. The majority of countries supporting PRC don't speak English (though not necessarily Chinese). Wikipedia wants a worldwide view of subjects, hence articles on non-English-speaking countries exist and quote non-English sources. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with individual editors' perceptions of media bias; Wikipedia cares about what meets Wikipedia policy. Based on WP:RSP, these news sources are not considered biased or unreliable. If you are opposed to this community decision, consider starting a new discussion at WP:PUMP and get the Wikipedia community onboard with labeling the BBC, Reuters, etc. as unreliable sources.

Also, your suggestion regarding non-English sources is silly, because not all languages use the same cognates in nomenclature - English has the words "nation", "country" and "state" as distinct words. Chinese equates two of these as 國家, and one of these as either 民族 or 國家 depending on context. Given that this is an English-language nomenclature problem, it only makes sense to make a rational decision based on English-language sources. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying BBC is unreliable. What I'm saying is that not every reliable source agrees with each other on such contentious issues. Democrat sources might say that Trump made a bad move in a policy, and a Republican source mentioning the same policy might highly praise it. They can both be considered RSs, yet we must exercise caution. I'll continue my reply soon. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Cont: This has departed from its original language nomenclature problem into a political problem. And I'm pretty sure English isn't the only language that discerns between "country" and "state". My conclusion is, still a good number of people consider Taiwan (ROC) as under China, and do not consider Taiwan a country. It is this subtle difference between "country" (politically incorrect) and "state" (politically better) that marks the difference, and I am going with the latter. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

over 40% Taiwanese voted for Han Kuo-Yu, opponents of the independence movement - this is a logical fallacy based upon false equivalence, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the democratic process. Participants of elections are not single-issue voters, and there are many reasons why someone might vote for a KMT candidate that are unrelated to the issue of Chinese reunification; Christian groups opposed to same-sex marriage traditionally vote KMT; historically KMT governments have provided more social services for Taiwanese aborigines, and therefore they are more likely to vote for KMT candidates; those who oppose closer economic ties with Japan vote KMT rather than DPP; those opposed to Hokkien language education and funding Hokkien public broadcasting vote KMT. Equating Han Kuo-yu voters with opponents of Taiwanese nationhood and/or supporters of Chinese reunification is a fallacy of the undistributed middle. Furthermore, the democratic process does not demand 100% of the population agreeing on every single public policy; only 51% is required for a simple majority. Demanding that the entire population be onboard with policy is impractical and silly, lawmakers would never ever get any bills passed. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Benlisquare "According to opinion poll conducted in Taiwan by Mainland Affairs Council in 2019, 27.7% of respondents supported Taiwan's independence: 21.7% said that status quo has to be maintained for now but Taiwan should become independent in the future, while 6% said that independence must be declared as soon as possible. 31% respondents supported the current situation as it is, and 10.3% agreed to unification with the mainland with 1.4% saying that it should happen as soon as possible.[37]" from Taiwan independence. This shows that 33.7% support Taiwan independence now while 31+10.3+1.4=42.7% doesn't support Taiwan independence, hence the lack of consensus among the Taiwanese to declare independence. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

By claiming that the 31% of status quo adherents who favour the current situation of de facto independence under the name ROC without formally declaring a Republic of Taiwan as part of the "anti-independence" camp, you're essentially poisoning the well here. A significant portion of the population opposes closer relations with mainland China, however do not wish to amend the constitution to formally declare the name of the nation as "Republic of Taiwan" because they do not wish to see war as a consequence of the 2005 anti-secession law of the PRC. Currently, opinion polls show that approval rates for the KMT are currently at 9 percent, while Tsai Ing-wen's approval rate sits at 75 percent. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as they don't want Taiwan to become a country, they can be considered "anti-independence". The status quo is that Taiwan is a state and not a country. The wish for Taiwan to reunite with China (11%) is equivalent to seeing Taiwan as a province of China. I guess a province, under the definitions, is much closer to "state" than to "country". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess ultimately at this point, we may as well agree to disagree. My worldview clearly doesn't match yours, and your view of the world is significantly different to mine. I certainly disagree with your statement that The status quo is that Taiwan is a state and not a country, given that Taiwan demonstrates more characteristic hallmarks of a country than a place like Serbia, and that keeping the Taiwan article in line with that of other countries both meets with Wikipedia's policies, and provides a better understanding for the majority of layperson readers who use Wikipedia. You are certainly entitled to maintain your position, however I definitely won't be changing mine. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Even now Taiwan has not declared official independence. While the DPL is pushing for independence, and leaders are pushing to single out Taiwan from China, even the DPL has not declared Taiwan to be independent from China. Yes, the US is blowing Taiwan independence all over the place, signing regulations attempting to establish Taiwan and even HK as independent countries. The UN deemed the PRC to be the "sole legitimate government of China", and hence the UN considered that the PRC had, in some sense, a higher status than the ROC. Talking about WP:NPOV, to put it shortly there is no NPOV in politics. Simply speaking, I can't see a way to neutrally report global politics (with all the US drama), hence this discussion. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 06:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state, we are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan." - Tsai Ing-wen, January 2020. Why does a country formed in 1912 need to declare independence from a country formed in 1949? Also, you do have URLs to any sources which prove that the United States is attempting to push for Hong Kong's independence? --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Why does a country formed in 1912 need to declare independence from a country formed in 1949? – United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 stipulates that the PRC is the sole legitimate gov't of China, which was an internatianal agreement which Taiwan is trying to reverse. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:38, 13 May 2020

The United Nations is not an authoritative power. If the UN wishes to further the fantasy that a PRC citizen can vote in ROC elections, be protected by ROC soldiers, and be treated by the ROC healthcare system, and that an ROC citizen can vote in PRC elections, be protected by PRC soldiers, and buy real estate property within PRC cities, then that's the UN's own perogative. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

argument reinstating: the above replies are becoming too difficult to understand, but right now Taiwan has quite limited recognition as a country. Given that "state" is a less controversial word than either :country" or "province" (as it looked like 8 months ago), the word choice of "state" is the preferred one. We don't care what China's take on this (i.e. it is a province), but we also don't care about the Taiwanese's views on this as per neutrality. Right now, countries are pushing hard to politically make Taiwan more independent from China, but so far, even among those who dislike China, Taiwan is not yet accepted as a country. Until then, it should be the less controversial "state". This is not in contradiction with the other wording examples (Singapore, North/South Korea, UK) given largely because they have been accepted by the United Nations. Taiwan, right now, is not really recognised as a country. Only 15 countries, for now, recognise Taiwan as an independent country. "State" has both meaning and is a bit more ambiguous, which is in this case preferred due to the political sensitivity of this issue. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that "state" is a less controversial word - "State" is not less controversial, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this 600 kilobyte discussion on Wikipedia.
Right now, countries are pushing hard to politically make Taiwan more independent from China - This is your own personal fantasy, the future of Taiwan lies upon the decisions of the Taiwanese people, and the Taiwanese people only. The evil American empire isn't pointing a gun to Taiwan and forcing them to become independent.
Only 15 countries, for now, recognise Taiwan as an independent country. - Only 15 countries, for now, do not pretend that Taiwan is not a de facto country, while continuing to sell Taiwan billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks and missiles. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

For one, "state" is less controversial when compared to "country". The PRC would be more comfortable with Taiwan being called a "state" than a "country" since "country" = "sovereign state" (mentioned above). Taiwan fulfills the definition of a "state"; that is pretty obvious. Sovereignty, on the other hand, is disputed.

Only 15 countries, for now, do not pretend that Taiwan is not a de facto country, while continuing to sell Taiwan billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks and missiles. -- from the article Foreign relations of Taiwan, it can be seen that there are still >100 countries that do not maintain relations with Taiwan at all. Among the ~100 countries that maintain relationships with Taiwan while still maintaining "unofficial diplomatic relations" like the US, many of them don't do this much as one would to a real (undisputed) nation. Besides, HK and Macau also have foreign diplomatic relations. That doesn't make HK and Macau independent from China. The China-HK-Macau-Taiwan system (兩岸四地) should be treated with caution, and (kind of) as a special case.

I may have been wrong with "politically make Taiwan more independent from China", but nevertheless Taiwan has not declared independence and most nations don't consider Taiwan to be sufficiently independent from China to be called a "country". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The PRC would be more comfortable with Taiwan being called a "state" than a "country" - Wikipedia does not need to concern itself with what the PRC is comfortable with because Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia only needs to concern itself with United States copyright laws, obscenity laws, libel laws, and non-profit fundraising laws, because the Wikimedia Foundation servers are located in Florida.
That doesn't make HK and Macau independent from China. - Nobody has ever disputed the PRC's sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macau. Every single country on earth recognises that Hong Kong and Macau are indisputable parts of China. This is yet another false equivalence.
most nations don't consider Taiwan to be sufficiently independent from China - What is your personal threshold for "sufficiently independent"? All ROC citizens have free healthcare (while PRC citizens living in the PRC have to pay money, and might get partially subsidised by their employer through the 社會醫療保險卡 system), all ROC citizens are entitled to own land (while PRC citizens can only "borrow" land from the government, and can be forced to relinquish at any time), all ROC citizens have visa-free entry into the majority of OECD nations (while PRC citizens need to be slowly and tediously vetted). Does the ROC Air Force need to drop a nuclear bomb on Beijing in order to demonstrate its sufficiency in its self-governance? --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

okay, I get your point -- my 1st statement wasn't worded well (ignore that statement). I'm not saying Taiwan is a province of China. I'm saying that yes, Taiwan's government and systems resemble a country more than a dependent province. But at the same time, Taiwan is technically not a country. The closest description to "country" that is politically accurate is "state", and that's what I'm going with. Taiwan is like a country in every respect except for that international argument in 1971 that ruled out Taiwan as an independent country. Therefore, Taiwan cannot be accurately called a country. However, Taiwan can be called a state and since state ≈ country, I'm going with the word "state". Until that agreement is overturned, or Taiwan gains the international recognition of more nations, it's still not a country but a near-country, hence the word "state". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

anyway, I agree that there can never be a consensus on such political issues. We may have to stay with the ideology of "agree to disagree", and there simply cannot be any agreement. Have a good time, and I wish you all the best! From Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country. Despite all the debate over Taiwan's "official" status, its de facto if not declared status is a sovereign and independent nation, both economically as well as politically. It is also generally treated as such even by nations which do not recognize it diplomatically. It would be absurd to classify Taiwan, embraced as a part of the Free World, along with a formerly independent state and province of PRC such as Tibet. World Almanac includes Taiwan's flag and an entry in its "Nations of the World" section. Any debate over its status centers around deference to the belligerent PRC, whose authority over Taiwan is only theoretical and imaginary, and whose hostile rule over mainland China has been illegally usurped. It does no one any favors to use language or terms that kowtow to that. - JGabbard (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree to the wording de facto country, as it conveys the meaning of “almost, not exactly”. If state is not okay “de facto country” is my option no. 2. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 14:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• It is clear that this discussion's iutcone can never satisfy more than 70% of the population. This inherently political discussion won't be going anywhere. Just a reminder that let's avoid going too political and avoid losing our cool. Focus on the wording not your political views on Taiwan. Cheers to all, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 12:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you think you could do everyone a favor and summarize your argument? By my count you’ve made four independent and contradictory arguments. I’m also confused about whether or not you think this is a political discussion as you say above "This inherently political discussion won't be going anywhere." but you said earlier that "IMO this is not a political discussion" so I think you need to be a little clearer. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

okay -- I was saying that it should have been a discussion of prose, but the setting makes it tend towards a question of politics. Hence I decided to slap a message telling people to avoid getting way too political. In short, my argument is that Taiwan is not yet a legitimate country. Yes, it looks like one, in every respect, but so far it has not gained international acceptance. Calling it a state is the closest we can get while staying true to that binding agreement and the legal facts (not yet a country), certainly closer than a province. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Who defines what is a "legitimate" country? Seems to me that any country where the inhabitants accept the rule of the government in place is legitimate in the only meaningful way. ---Khajidha (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Legitimate" as in the 1971 international ruling that establishes the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. This is a decision that Taiwan has been planning to reverse for the past 10, maybe 20, years. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No such ruling exists. There is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, but that only states that the PRC is "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations". That is not the same thing. --Khajidha (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The article should stick to the legal facts: The Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan) is a state with limited recognition controlling the island of Taiwan and some other smaller islands. Constitutionally speaking, it claims to be the sole legitimate government of China and does not recognize the People's Republic of China (commonly known as China); in practice, it has become largely synonymous with a Taiwanese state. I think it is completely lacking NPOV in the current form. De wafelenbak (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• No chance as that is not what is being discussed here. The only thing we are concerned with is if we keep "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia" or we change it to "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Island We can avoid the issue of jumping the gun and follow some other encyclopedias, e.g. Britannica's and Encarta's articles start with "island". Same with Great Soviet Encyclopedia: "an island in the Pacific Ocean" ("остров в Тихом океане"). The issue of country/state could be explained in subsequent sentences within the lead. Brandmeister^talk 19:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan Island is a separate subject from Taiwan the political entity which is sometimes referred to as an island, looks like the encarta and Soviet Encyclopedia entries are for the former. Brittanica says “self-governing Island” which is a bit different than just saying island. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"Taiwan Island" currently redirects to Geography of Taiwan. Which is about the entire country, with (of course) most of the material being about the big island. --Khajidha (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country - All the sources seem to call it a country. This is an issue wrought with NPOV problems, but the answer seems pretty clear from the reliable sources. The correct thing to do is not to skirt the issue by avoiding it (which kind of feels like censorship), which may be what other encyclopedias do (why should we care what the "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" says?). It's a country; let's call it a country. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country per WP:COMMONNAME per sources cited above, also [81] Adoring nanny (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country per the above sources calling it a country and because most readers whould refer to it as a country.– BrandonXLF (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Reaching Consensus Please continue to place your comments, arguments, sources, facts, opinions and discussion above in the main RfC section. I would like to open this section below for those that have posted above with something other than country to say whether or not they are comfortable with a country consensus. There is clearly a majority of editors who prefer country and I would like to try and build consensus with those who originally disagree with this. Please only post here if you have already written your comment / suggestion above and the suggestion you made was not country and simply state YES/NO as to whether you are alright with a country consensus. If so, why? If not, why? Template included below: [YES|NO]: [REASON] <signature> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Balaban (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Comment: Run-off polling is unnecessary, because polling is not substitute for discussion, and votes aren't considered valid WP:CONSENSUS building because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Whoever closes this RFC discussion is supposed to go through the arguments presented in the discussion above, and finalise an outcome from there. We're already having a clear discussion of points and counter-points, adding something like this would push this further into polling territory. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC) [NO]: We do have to consider what country translates to in Chinese: 國家。And it is important because when a Chinese person comes across this (or one of similar mind) will think that Taiwan is a 國家, but Taiwan never declared independence from ROC and ROC never changed its name. In short, there is no 國家named "Taiwan" without parentheses. There is no direct translation in Chinese for state in this matter, and when one comes across this, one would sense that there is a difference. I am all out for "state". Or "disputed political entity".Cycw (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC) The Chinese language article uses the term 國家. That's one of the points I made above. You are correct in saying that 國家 translates to country. However, NPOV of Wikipedia doesn't need to take into account a person from the PRC reading the article and disagreeing with it. See WP:UNCENSORED. Cycw, this RFC only relates to the English Wikipedia, this decision will have no impact on the Chinese Wikipedia. The translation doesn't matter because this wiki is meant for people who can read English and who aren't relying on translations, that's the whole point of having different language Wikipedias. – BrandonXLF (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Country. Reasoning per Benlisquare and Phlar. comrade waddie96 (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC) @Stephen Balaban: See, this is why I'm opposed to many different subdiscussions within an RFC, it's too confusing for participants, and very understandably so. Why can't we just have a basic RFC discussion? Please reconsider the need for this subsection, I would strongly suggest closing it. The subdiscussion does not provide additional value to the RFC. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Agreed. In a vote with 70% support we don't care about the remaining 30%. Similarly for this RfC. RfCs simply do not work this way. I have to agree that this section should be closed quickly, we just don't need a "comfortable or not" section. What can I do if I'm not comfortable? The RfC is going to close in the exact same way. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Country. Reasoning per Benlisquare and Phlar. comrade waddie96 (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note: I have copied this comment from the closed discussion above. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country - Enough reliable sources call it a country, and we report on what they say rather than what we think it is. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. An ABS-CBN news article, GMA News article, and three Philippine Star articles (country, bansa which is Tagalog for country, country again) refers to Taiwan as a country. I never heard nor read Philippine news referring to Taiwan as a state (maybe The Manila Times does it due to its pro-government bias, but I haven't checked that yet). There's also an ABS-CBN article which refers to Taiwan as an "island-nation". Pandakekok9 (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Heh, nevermind, there's also an article by The Manila Times which refers to Taiwan as a country. Seems like only their opinion articles are cancerous. Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Island. Taiwan is an Island (with disputed ownership). The Republic of China is a state (with disputed legitimacy). The problem with this article is that it conflates the two. (Which is especially confusing because the Republic of China claims to be the government of all of China, not just Taiwan.) This article should start with "Taiwan is an island which is de facto governed by the Republic of China". A separate article on the Republic of China should explain that the Republic of China is the de facto government of Taiwan while also claiming to be the de jure government of mainland China. 70.51.228.249 (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)— 70.51.228.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• That was how these articles were structured between 2003 and 2012, with the country article located at Republic of China, and the island geography article located at Taiwan. However, there was clear and indisputable community consensus to move the country article to Taiwan following a RM discussion in 2012, and we have been at this situation ever since. The pre-exodus content was split and moved to Republic of China (1912–1949), the post-exodus content was moved to Taiwan, and the geography article was first moved to Taiwan (island), and then later Geography of Taiwan. While it's certainly true that consensus can change, if you take a good read of the community atmosphere on Wikipedia, I seriously doubt that any proposal to move Taiwan back to Republic of China will see any success. Ultimately, the WP:CONSENSUS regarding the article title shows no sign of changing any time soon (especially given recent events), and my suggestion would be to focus on improving article content rather than putting hopes on a new RM that, with absolute certainty, will never happen. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. Was the problem that "Republic of China" went against WP:COMMON? If so, I would suggest **Taiwan** for the article on the Island and **Taiwan (Republic of China)** for the state. 70.51.228.249 (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country The above analyses (thanks all) indicate clearly that the preponderance of English-language reliable sources use the term, and the preponderance of non-English reliable sources use thier language's equivalent of country. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country As shown by all the above RSs which suggest that Taiwan is a country as opposed to a state. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country as per the above wall of words. The english language RSs are heavily weighted toward 'country.' Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• State - Despite the complex and controversial political position of Taiwan, it has limited recognition as a Sovereign state by the international community. The One-China policy complicates this, but the Republic of China/Taiwan is still a soveriegn state, just one with limited international recognition, like Kosovo, Israel or Northern Cyprus.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• This rehashed claim again. One of those you listed has "country" within the lead sentence, another has a passport with access to Turkey and nobody else, and can be potentially accepted by four other countries and nobody else, and finally the last one only has visa-free entry into 41 countries. Apples, oranges and tomatoes are all fruits, but everyone would call you a freak if you put tomatoes into fruit salad, so why put Taiwan into the "unrecognised state" salad? --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country - Taiwan is a de facto independent country. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Both "country" and "state" would be appropriate descriptors for Taiwan's political status, but if sources prefer the former, we should go with that. I oppose any other option than "country" or "state". feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 05:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country per above. ~ HAL333 13:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country self-determination is a value Wikipedia should hold in cases like these, where a powerful country like China is forcing other countries to treat Taiwan as a province when most of them wouldn't do it if there wasn't retaliation. Wikipedia has no such problem and it's not bound by the One China rule. --MewMeowth (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

MewMeowth, State is not equal to province, see above. Rather, "state" is the closest thing to "country" in this context, nobody is arguing that Taiwan is a province. Nevertheless there is strong consensus towards "country" and that, I think, is something we should go with. As the RfC is getting less active, I guess we should call in an admin. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 06:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Eumat114 For many people, particularly those who live in countries divided into smaller states, such as Germany, Mexico, and the United States, the title of state carries a connotation of inferiority and submission to a central power. ~ HAL333 03:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

HAL333, yes so "sovereign state" is a better choice IMO. After all, the "status quo" is that Taiwan is a sovereign state. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Eumat114 I would back the use of the term "sovereign state" as well. ~ HAL333 13:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• State I remember an RFC a longgg time ago that concluded that state is more neutral than country. Country is highly subjective imo whereas state is regularly defined in international legal literature. Augend (drop a line) 23:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reword more severely. Drop the fourth lede paragraph while introducing the international politcal statehood dispute into the lede sentence. i.e.

  Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is an internationally politically disputed sovereign state in East Asia.

Both "country" and "state" are word games that mean different things to different people, and both are wrong in some ways. Taiwan is, and is not, a real state, and a real country. It depends on one's political perspective. The fourth paragraph is excessive bloat for a lede section, I guess it is like that because the dispute is so important. If the dispute is so important, and it definitely is, then introduce it to the lede sentence. Taiwan is more notable as a disputed state than it is as something in East Asia. The fourth paragraph can be merged into the lede of the level section Taiwan#Political_and_legal_status. The words fit better there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete the fourth lede paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)} stray draft words that weren't meant to be added. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the dispute is important enough to mention in the opening sentence, and that the fourth paragraph is bloated, but not that it should be deleted entirely. There are key points about Taiwan's status: that it is claimed by the PRC, diplomatically recognized by few countries but has de facto relations with most, and the way the main political divide reflects attitudes on the question. The reason you don't see anything similar in other country articles is because this situation has no parallel elsewhere, and that's also why they are essential to any summary. Kanguole 10:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. "Delete" was the wrong word. The essential part can get into the lede sentence, and the rest can go below in the body. If the dispute make the lede sentence, there is no need to add quickly stated details, details go below, and as per the rest of the lede section, there is much more to Taiwan than the state status dispute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The essential stuff is too much to fit all of it in the opening sentence, but too important to omit from the lead. There is certainly much more to Taiwan than the dispute, but Taiwan's unusual status is also key to understanding the place. Kanguole 12:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The first sentence needs to remain simple and easy to read. Phlar (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Opening a discussion; see my comment below. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Support "country". Also support "country, and disputed state". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country - calling it a state would seem like something the PRC would want to do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, as per WP:TDLI that "calling it a state is what the PRC wants" is not a really valid argument. Besides, the PRC wants to call it a province, which is radically different from a "state". A state is, as I said before, the closest thing to a country that is internationally politically correct and also close enough to the messy political situation. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• In light of the discussions above the problem might not be as simple as a "country" vs. "state" distinction. We need a deeper discussion into how the first section above; I am WP:BOLDly opening a new section about a discussion on the layout. Feel free to close/revert me if you deem it unnecessary. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• State - calling it a "Country" seems to unneccesarily wade into domestic politics about the nature of the RoC vs independence leaning parties. 72.141.137.95 (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country or sovereign state. It is not a state of a larger country, therefore it should NOT be called simply "a state". Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Taiwan is an island; to call it a country or a state is to confuse geography with politics. The Republic of China is both a state and a country. It's best described as a country.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Taiwan's circumstance is so unique that it's really difficult to draw parallels to other examples, but I would like to attempt to draw some parallels with a regional neighbor: Korea. There are some slight parallels with Korea. Both North Korea and South Korea hold claims to each other's territories (in parallel with how the ROC and PRC hold claims to each other's territories), and both of these articles refer to the topic in question as countries (i.e. North Korea article says North Korea is a country, as does South Korea's article). The difference between Korea's case and Greater China's case is that both Korean governments coexist in the United Nations whereas the ROC and PRC do not, and that the size of territory controlled by the PRC and the ROC is so vastly imbalanced to the point where it's hard to look at Taiwan and refer to it as "China" without further explanation. After exploring both Korean and Chinese Wikipedia spaces, the article names are as follows:
  • Korean Wikipedia:
    • China: ko:중화인민공화국 (literal: People's Republic of China)
    • Taiwan: ko:중화민국 (literal: Republic of China)
    • South Korea: ko:대한민국 (literal: Republic of Korea)
    • North Korea: ko:조선민주주의인민공화국 (literal: Democratic People's Republic of Korea)
  • Chinese Wikipedia:
    • China: zh:中华人民共和国 (literal: People's Republic of China)
    • Taiwan: zh:中华民国 (literal: Republic of China)
    • South Korea: zh:大韩民国 (literal: Republic of Korea)
    • North Korea: zh:朝鲜民主主义人民共和国 (literal: Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

These articles in both Wikipedias are based on the government names and not by the colloquial names (i.e. Taiwan is named 中华民国 and not 台湾), which allows for the text to be more specific. If we were having a debate about what to name the article (a debate that's already taken place), then this would be a good argument, but if we're set on referring to this page as Taiwan and not the Republic of China then it just feels weird to call it a country while at the same time just referring to it as a mere state. In China's case, it is further complicated by the fact that the Republic of China not only controls Taiwan but also controls Kinmen, Matsu, and other territory not considered part of "Taiwan" or its surrounding islands, so to say that "Taiwan is a country" is true in a colloquial sense but can technically be interpreted as false. Kinmen is *not* Taiwan, and Kinmen is as much a territory of the Republic of China as is Taiwan. I think the only objective way to proceed with breaking this down is to use the policy of deliberate ambiguity in this particular article followed by directing readers to a place that breaks down Taiwan's situation in an objective manner (Political status of Taiwan is a great article that serves this purpose). -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment:: I feel it really bad to let Wikipedians to judge something that even the experts cannot state explicitly. Such judgement, as far as I am concerned, would be essentially populist due to our lack of knowledge which often biases our judgement. Also, keeping a populist rule but ignoring 1.4 billion Chinese would definitely be stupid and undoubtedly offensive. The wise way is that we should make it less populist, and less rely on how we really feel about the thing and instead clearly describe the dispute explicitly by saying that Taiwan is a "disputed state/country" and leave it alone. Drawing a conclusion on a disputed topic as if the dispute had been settled is not at all what we should and could do.--34Unionist (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If China didn't want the voice of 1.4 billion Chinese people to be unheard, it wouldn't have implemented the Great Firewall. This is something beyond our control, and beyond our jurisdiction; it's the consequence of a 100% self-inflicted ailment. People in China who are already passionate enough about contributing to Wikipedia would have already done so via VPNs (there are thousands of such Wikipedia editors, contributing to the project right now), so it's not like they're actively being excluded by Wikipedia. With this in mind, we need to focus on how we can improve the reading experience for our current readers of Wikipedia, rather than the potential experience of a hypothetical 1.4 billion people who don't know about Wikipedia, don't wish to read Wikipedia, or don't need to read Wikipedia. Based on Wikipedia policy, the majority of reliable sources call the topic of this article a country; based on Wikipedia policy, the name most commonly used to describe the topic of this article is Taiwan.

(Removed my Chinese version of the above text, because it's clearly causing users to be upset) --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benlisquare:Sorry but I would consider you what you said a little bit racist for I did not even try to speak Chinese here. You don't need to assume that I can read Chinese deliberately, treat me differently from others here by being sarcastic about what I have said in written Chinese. What you say about the majority of Chinese who is underrepresented here is just as absurd as those who want to silence Taiwan as an underrepresented state in the world. You should by no means make such sarcasm, which, in my humble opinion, backfires. --34Unionist (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, you see, this is why there is a common negative stereotype of Chinese people debating online, you immediately jump towards a defensive position, find a convenient target amongst something small I say, and conveniently avoid addressing the primary issue.

Sorry but I would consider you a little bit racist - I'm Chinese. I ancestrally hail from Beijing. Fuck, 12 years ago I was literally a pro-China 憤青 on the internet until I stopped being an edgy teenager, and actually saw the real world. Even so, I'd have every right to say what I have said even if I wasn't Chinese. Such reasoning is as silly as a Turkish person saying "you're not allowed to talk about the Armenian genocide if you're not Turkish, otherwise you're racist". If somebody challenges a position you raise, the correct thing is to address those points, and not wave the discrimination flag around.

You don't need to assume that I can read Chinese deliberately - It's literally inferred from your userpage. Don't like it, then don't share that information.

treat me differently from others here - Your English grammar is undeniably spotty at best, it is not unreasonable for me to provide a bilingual response, for the sake of unambiguous comprehensibility. In fact, for the past 15 years I generally do provide bilingual responses on Wikipedia talkpages whenever I see fit. There are other Chinese people on this talk page right now, and I have not responded to them with bilingual messages, because they don't make English grammar mistakes.

What you say about the majority of Chinese who is underrepresented here is just as absurd - It's a common trope that whenever China's official position is questioned, the standard cookie-cutter response is to mention that China has 1.4 billion people. Basing your argument that 1.4 billion people might be opposed to a position holds less ground than Wikipedia policy such as WP:RS, which you still have not responded to yet. If you want to constructively contribute to a discussion, the best thing to avoid is casting aspersions that other people are "hypocritical" or "actually being censors" like you have done below. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I don't think your background matters when talking with you until you told me it is important. I am proud of my background and am happy to share the information, but it is totally not relevant to this debate. OK? Your personal history doesn't matter to me or to the issue, either. I am just trying to remind you of that. It is racist, I mean the behaviour of treating people differently according to their background. Sorry for improper wording. --34Unionist (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

My position still stands unchanged. If your concern is that the voice of Chinese people is being unduely misrepresented here, then by all means find a way to increase constructive Chinese participation in this discussion. It is not the fault of the Wikipedia community that there are various restrictions that prevent such participation from occurring, and you should not place the blame on us when it is a factor completely beyond our control. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Moreover have all 1.4 billion Chinese been personally asked in a way that would allow for them to express their views without fear of reprisal? If so can we have a link to the survey in question?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a red herring. Also, you are being sarcastic about China of lack of free speech, but you will not actually listen to any of a real Chinese from China who is trying to exercise his freedom of speech, despite all the sarcasm and presumption you make about them. This is hypocritical. You are actually a censor in another sense.--34Unionist (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No I am asking how you know what 1.4 billion Chinese think. Ohh and we do listen to them, the problem is there are (at least) two factions. So which one do we decide is authoritative?, which is why I asked for proof this is what all Chinese think, because those who live in Taiwan would say they do not agree.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a question given that you claim to live in the PRC, wouldn’t it be illegal for a PRC citizen to vote “Country” in this poll? Pretty sure that would count as separatism, no? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Taiwan but also controls Kinmen, Matsu, and other territory not considered part of "Taiwan" or its surrounding islands" This is as silly as saying that "Corsica" is not part of "France". Countries all over the world incorporate and control territory that is not contiguous with the "main bodies" of those countries. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• De facto sovereign state: As others have pointed out, this is a technically precise term in terms of international recognition and international law, which is also used by a large proportion of academic & journalistic RSes. It specifies the actual situation without deferring to ambiguous terms like state (polity) and country.
  Country is ambiguous, since it is used for dependencies and constituent states as well as for sovereign states. The alternative of de facto country isn’t standard terminology – it’s not frequently used by RSes nor by major international organizations.
  It’s inappropriate exercise to directly use editors’ personal understandings of the situation to describe it. We should defer to academic & journalistic RSes and major international organizations, while acknowledging the pressure applied by the PRC to the latter group. Self-determination also isn’t an appropriate barometer, since there are dozens of declared independent and micro states that are described as sovereign states by almost no academic/journalistic RSes and almost no major international organizations.
  The above are general points that should apply to all entities, in particular those with limited recognition by a large proportion of RSes/major international organizations. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I would remind users thus is the English language wiki, this is the language we use here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• State English wikipedia should meet most people's opinions. That is to say, the attitudes towards English wikipedia should be consistent with most countries and most international organisations instead of someone's political view. Of course there are some countries which have diplomatic relations with Republic of China, so when it comes to some political article about the ROC, it can be regarded as a country. However, in most of the websites, news, reports and newspaper, we cannot see the three words regardless of the requirement of Communist Party of China or the own behaviour of other countries. So in my point of view, English wikipedia should respect most countries' and international organisations' decisions because there aren't and shouldn't be so much disagreement here. English wikipedia is not Chinese wikipedia and doesn't have severe conflicts between PRC and ROC, China and Taiwan. --Easterlies (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Easterlies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• However, in most of the websites, news, reports and newspaper, we cannot see the three words - Source? Can you provide links that show that most "websites, news, reports and newspapers" don't use words such as "country" to describe Taiwan? --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country', and here's why: "State" is a very generic term that can be applied to various sorts of government entities. Even :"sovereign state"--which the states in the US like to call themselves even though they are actually independent in only a few limited matters. Bt "country" is specific. In a political sense, it means a full self-governing country, or one that at least chooses to claim that it is self governing, like the Soviet era republics. Taiwan is in both its own opinion self governing, and no subject to any outside controls except for whatever may be its treaty obligations. It runs its own foreign affairs, it has its own military force. It may think it ought to be the legitimate government of mainland China, but in practice it has no authority there. The PRC considers Taiwan's claim to independent status illegitimate, and therefore does not refer to it as a country, and so do some other governments and organizations that wish to be on good terms with the PRC. But in practice the PRC has no actual jurisdiction there and no actual military forces or other instruments of government active there, however much it may wish otherise -- and, even, to those who uspport the PR politically, however much it possibly might be entitled to justly wish otherwise and consider it entitled to. Country is therefore the more specific definition,and what we ought to use. We describe the world as it is, whether or not we like the way it is. It's justified by the actual facts of the current situation, and by what it considers itself. It is open to anyone to l decide whether o not to consider this status legitimate. (The examples of usage above are mostly irrelevant--ther terms are in general writing used withoutay specific thought to the specific meaning). DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  @DGG: Which US states claim to be sovereign?! — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  All of them. As stated in our own article "each state holds governmental jurisdiction over a separate and defined geographic territory and shares its sovereignty with the federal government." --Khajidha (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Right, a state shares its sovereignty with the federal government, so it is not a sovereign state on its own. A sovereign state isn’t dependent on other overarching entities. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Wouldn't that also apply to the EU members that have delegated part of their sovereignty to the EU itself? --Khajidha (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  EU member states don’t share sovereignty with the EU organization in the same way that US states do. The powers delegated to the EU aren’t of the same binding and supreme authority that the US federal government holds (both legally and de facto). For instance, see Member state of the European Union#Sovereignty: Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union guarantees the sovereignty of EU member states, while allowing for partial delegation to EU institutions. In other words, EU member states have delegated partial sovereignty to the EU in a limited sense (akin to the early US two centuries ago), yes, but not to the same degree that US states have.

  But we don’t need to trust my explanation or ponder the extent to which partial sovereignty renders the term sovereign state inapplicable. RSes treat EU member states as sovereign states. RSes haven’t described US states as sovereign states since the mid-19th century. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country or Sovereign state - b/c a) per all the "de facto" comments above, that's what it is, and b) that's how most sources refer to it. NickCT (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Full Protection is not necessary

The editors are civil enough at this time to make necessary changes without breaking Wikipedia laws. Regice2020 (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There appear to be two separate content disputes, one is being addressed by the RFC above and the other one seems more easily addressed by warning the two or three editors involved (I checked their talk pages and they don’t appear to have been warned) and topic banning them if it doesn't stop than shutting down the page of a major nation for two weeks. I will note though that neither of those disputes as far as I can see has gotten out of hand, I see no real nastiness or violations of 3rr. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I'm the editor who requested the protection. It seems to me that 90%+ of the last several months' of editing are just edit warring over the "ROC"/"Taiwan" and "country"/"state", and I count well over a dozen editors involved in this long, slow edit war. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

And I see no reason to assume this...will not stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We have consensus on the "ROC"/“Taiwan” thing and it seems we are about to have consensus on the "country"/“state” thing. If we can turn the ROC vs ROC (Taiwan) as the official name thread into a RFC we can solve all three problems being argued over. Once we have established consensus we can take strong action against those who edit against it and the problem should be over soon enough. We might keep having to whack-a-mole new accounts and IPs but thats the case on hundreds if not thousands of pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Official name is not determined by consensus, but by the founding document of the nation. The government and others can use any other names as AKA, but official name remained unchanged unless there is an amendment to change it. --Will74205 (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The Constitution of Australia affirms that New Zealand is a state of Australia, the Constitution of the United States guarantees personal privacy, and the Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Let's not put constitutions on a pedestal here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem arrises in that we use the english language here and most of the founding documents of nations around the world are not in english, if thats your argument then the official name section should be filled with traditional Chinese characters not english text. For many countries their name in english is different from their name in their native tongue, sometimes to the point of being literally unrelated. Thats why we use consensus even if at first it seems silly and yes if all the constitutions of the world were written in english it *would* be silly but they aren’t. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We should definitely have an RFC on what the official name of Taiwan is. There seems to be a contingent of editors who think the term "Taiwan" shares an equal official status with "Republic of China," going as far as putting the official name as Republic of China (Taiwan), or editing the opening entry to imply "Republic of China" as just an alternative name to "Taiwan" with no larger official/constitutional significance. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The current preferred name of the Taiwanese Government is Republic of China (Taiwan) if you’re wondering where that "contingent of editors” gets the idea (I think you may have misinterpreted the arguments being made there). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Republic of China" is the official name, as enshrined in the constitution, unless there is an amendment to change it, all other names are AKA.--Will74205 (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Just like the "state" vs "country" rfc above, there are a few things that need to be considered: 1) What the entity calls itself via reliable primary sources. 2) What the entity is called by reliable secondary sources. 3) How the general public recognizes the entity. There is more to any story than just the constitution of a country. Wikipedia needs to take a NPOV stance that is not influenced by either side of a debate / religious war. Stephen Balaban 08:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I reserve judgement on what the official name is but I know its one of those debates in which there is no clearly right side... The situation I’m faced with now is that Will74205 says they knows what the country’s official name is and the president of the country says she knows what the name is, they are in disagreement. You apparently expect me to take your word, that of some sketchy rando on the internet, over the word of the president of the country in question. Do you see why you being so sure of yourself comes off a little hollow? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Kinmen and Matsu

Hi guys, a Wikipedia newbie here. I feel like it is quite necessary to address the status of Kinmen and Matsu within the political entity in the lead paragraph as to give a complete overview of the political entity, just like how the Chinese Wikipedia page for this does （ I am referring to this one: "實轄領土面積36,197平方公里，包括臺灣本島及附屬島嶼、澎湖群島、部分福建沿岸島嶼與部分南海諸島"). Will attach a translation if needed. Any ideas? Cycw (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you’re going to need to attach a translation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! I had other work to do yesterday. Cycw (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead paragraph briefly covers Kinmen and Matsu, albeit without directly referring to the islands by name, with the line Although the ROC government continued to claim to be the legitimate representative of China, since 1950 its effective jurisdiction has been limited to Taiwan and numerous smaller islands; users are then able to click the link should they desire to learn more about those outlying islands. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I see it. But this brings up a problem on what the article should focus on because it is titled as "Taiwan". Kinmen and Matsu are not geographically part of Taiwan, but the political entity controls Kinmen and Matsu. So wouldn't this become a bit ambiguous and would not give accurate information (the difference between the geographic and political differences)? I think the Chinese Wikipedia does a relatively good job about this.Cycw (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait, why don't we just call this article "Republic of China (Taiwan)" which implies that this is about the political concept? That would be nice. Cycw (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the country of Taiwan. --Khajidha (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say?Cycw (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The country that you're talking about does not call itself just "Taiwan" as in what happens when you go to their official website. Cycw (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not bound by "official" terminology. The name of this country in general English usage is Taiwan. It includes the island of the same name and the surrounding minor islands under its control. --Khajidha (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't make the country's name "Taiwan". There is an entire party called the Kuomintang that would defend the name "the Republic of China". Also this would not comply under Wikipedia's NPOV policy as this is biased toward the Green camp. So are most mainstream media, I should point out. Cycw (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so that was a bit of a slight tangent. I suggest that we mention Kinmen and Matsu right after The island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third, where its highly urbanised population is concentrated as they are quite important. Cycw (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Already mentioned later in the lead ("its effective jurisdiction has been limited to Taiwan and numerous smaller islands."). As well as the Geography section.--Khajidha (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I meant right after the sentence. Sorry for any confusion. Cycw (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So can I move that, I guess? Moving the description earlier and modifying it reflects the strategic importance of Kinmen and Matsu within the political entity. Cycw (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think what we have now is sufficient. With the exception of Kinmen the minor outlying islands are just that, minor. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

So can I add the bit about Kinmen then? That was literally all that I wanted to do. Cycw (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like undue weight to give to such a minor thing.--Khajidha (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Don’t add it to the lead—undue weight as Khajidha wrote. If you must, expand one of the sections where Kinmen & Matsu are already mentioned in the body. Phlar (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Cycw (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Well, If it only describes the geography of the island of Taiwan and not that of Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu in the lead paragraph, this would be hardly be sufficient for an encyclopedic article, where we strive for rigorousness. The point is, it is missing roughly 2% of the territory of the political entity, and by not placing a description of it in the lead paragraph, it is implying that these territories are not important, when they clearly are. Cycw (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Clearly? I don't see how they are important. Ythlev (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) OK. So, first of all, Kinmen and Matsu are the first line of defense for the ROC from the PLA, and they are also a major factor to prevent Taiwanese independence, as in that if Taiwan is to declare independence from China (no matter what China means to you), They take these two regions with them while, since it is Taiwanese independence, they will have taken regions that are not geographically part of Taiwan, thus causing an invasion to the Chinese Mainland, and China is in its right to invade Taiwan (Kinmen and Matsu are very blue themselves too). So say they give it back to China, and they draw the border at the midline of the strait. They would be defenseless. All China has to do is to make the Penghu landing, which is what Koxinga did. And considering the difference in strength of the two militaries, the PLA can easily take over. And since China and America agreed that America would stay out if neither Beijing nor Taipei change the status quo, Taiwan would be sure to lose. So there you go - why Kinmen and Matsu are important. You are still trying to distinguish between "Taiwan the island" and "Taiwan the country". If the ROC declares independence as a country called Taiwan, the fact that these are separate islands is pretty well irrelevant. They are currently under Taiwanese jurisdiction and would remain so. Nothing would have changed and no "invasion" of the mainland would have occurred. --Khajidha (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Ah. Here we go again. To quote another Wikipedia article, "The Taiwan independence movement is a political and social movement that aims to establish an officially independent sovereign state and new country on the archipelagic territory of "Formosa and Pescadores", based on a unique "Taiwanese national identity"." It says "Formosa (Taiwan Island) and Pescadores (Penghu)", with no mentioning of Kinmen and Matsu. So, they would be invading China if they do not give Kinmen and Matsu back. Also, the idea that the common name of the "Republic of China" is "Taiwan" is mostly, if not entirely, a Pan-Green idea, so, again, you would be breaking Wikipedia's NPOV policy by insisting that Taiwan is a country or, for what you said, "Taiwan the country". Cycw (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Also, just to clarify, the Taiwanese independence we are talking about here is not a movement of ROC renaming itself Taiwan, but the geographic Taiwan breaking itself apart from de facto ROC. Renaming is a whole other thing, as it is already assuming the Taiwan is already a country. Cycw (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC) You need to reread the article Taiwan independence movement, as your description does not line up with all proponents of such. And the "idea that the common name of the "Republic of China" is "Taiwan" " has nothing to do with the Pan-Greens or any other Taiwanese political party, it is simply an objective description of the de facto situation. --Khajidha (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC) So are you saying that "The Republic of China is Taiwan" is commonly accepted then? Cycw (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC) In English language usage, yes. Hence why the page is named as it is. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Now, that is a Pan-Green ideology, and just because it is in a different language and is supported by almost every mainstream medium does not mean it is not biased, because in Taiwan, the issue is definitely split 50/50, as the Pan-Blue coalition does not support it. Why not take into account the voice of all Taiwanese? A brief history of how this came about: "the ROC comes to Taiwan" --> "the ROC on Taiwan" (Lee Teng-hui) --> "the ROC is Taiwan" (Chen Shui-bian, Tsai Ing-wen). Cycw (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Oh, and for Tsai Ing-wen, It is better to say that her idea is to call the political entity the Republic of China - Taiwan （中華民國台灣）, although there are no really 100% fitting translations. Whatever the Pan-Greens or any other Taiwanese political party believes is beside the point. The concept that "The Republic of China is Taiwan" is simply the conception that has developed in the English speaking world. --Khajidha (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC) And that is biased. And Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased. What is stopping anyone to add a phrase of description on how big Kinmen and Matsu are after mentioning how big Taiwan island is? Cycw (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Dude, you’re out of line. Accusing the entire community of bias is well beyond the subject matter at hand here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Yes, I do realize that. Don't take it as me not respecting all of your opinions - I do. My original suggestion was to add a line of description here - "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia. Neighbouring states include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the north-west, Japan to the north-east, and the Philippines to the south. The island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third, where its highly urbanised population is concentrated. The two groups of islands off the shore of the Chinese Mainland that are controlled by the political entity, Kinmen and Matsu, have a combined area of 179.26 square kilometers (69.217 sq mi). Taipei is the capital and largest metropolitan area. Other major cities include Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan and Taoyuan. With 23.7 million inhabitants, Taiwan is among the most densely populated states, and is the most populous state and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)." Thanks for the reminder. Cycw (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Kinmen and Matsu are the first line of defense for the ROC. I don't know what you mean by being "the first line of defense" but the Ministry of Defense publicly stated that in the event of an invasion, Kinmen and Matsu would have to defend themselves. They are effectively exclaves like West Berlin, which I wouldn't call a line of defense. they will have taken regions that are not geographically part of Taiwan, thus causing an invasion to the Chinese Mainland, and China is in its right to invade Taiwan. Don't be silly. Wars are rarely fought with legitimacy in mind. If you want to talk about legitimacy, Kinmen and Matsu are internationally recognised as a part of China, and China is internationally recognised as the PRC, so keeping Kinmen and Matsu is an act of rebellion. Cracking down rebellion, while often condemned, is not against international law. The ROC can expel Kinmen and Matsu, like how Malaysia expelled Singapore, then declare independence, completely legitimately. Ythlev (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC) So that's why they re unimportant? Cycw (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Because legitimacy is unimportant. It does not decide wars or diplomacy or everyday life. Kinmen and Matsu are no different from Penghu. Ythlev (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC) And, referring to your last sentence, the ROC declaring independence from whom? Cycw (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC) I meant ROC changing its name to Taiwan, renouncing its mainland territory etc, whatever you meant. Ythlev (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Not only is this bit "Kinmen and Matsu are internationally recognised as a part of China, and China is internationally recognised as the PRC, so keeping Kinmen and Matsu is an act of rebellion. Cracking down rebellion, while often condemned, is not against international law. The ROC can expel Kinmen and Matsu, like how Malaysia expelled Singapore, then declare independence, completely legitimately.” off topic its also facepalm level wrong. The mental gymnastics you have to do to arrive at that position are wild even by the standards of the China-Taiwan conflict. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Which part? Ythlev (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan to pass bill officially recognising the People's Republic of China

The situation is likely to significantly change within the coming month, Taiwan's government is aiming to pass a new law officially recognising the People's Republic of China's territorial control over the Chinese mainland, and officially recognising the People's Republic of China as a legitimate country.

中華民國尊重中華人民共和國占領大陸淪陷區之歷史事實，並承認中華人民共和國之主權。
Translation: The Republic of China respects the historical fact that the People's Republic of China controls the territory of the occupied area of the mainland, and recognises the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China.

Currently the DPP holds a majority of seats in parliament, so given that the Anti-infiltration Act took approximately one month to pass, we'll likely see a similar timeframe for this particular bill (although we should still wait and see, given WP:CRYSTAL). If this bill passes, this will be the biggest dramatic change to the China-Taiwan situation since the constitutional reforms in 2005; the current position since 1991 is that the ROC states that it does not effectively administer ROC territory outside of the Free area of the Republic of China while not formally renouncing the territory; this new bill officially renounces all territory outside of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu Islands, Dongsha Islands and Taiping Island. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the actual bill: [82]. It makes no mention of the PRC. As for territory, the constitution already uses the "free area", so this is not that much of a change. Ythlev (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you not see the mentioning of the PRC? It is the third item on the second page, which is quoted above! Cycw (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That is the explanation of why the bill is proposed, not the law itself. Ythlev (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, a bill is obviously not the law, and secondly, I was asking you how you did not see the mentioning of the PRC (which may be that there is a confusion here). Now that we got stuff cleared up, it is important that we know that the ROC does not recognize the PRC yet, and the bill (or the explanation, as you mentioned) is saying that the ROC recognizes the sovereignty of the PRC, which, if the bill will be passed, will become the truth. So let's go from here? Cycw (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The bill is the PROPOSED law. And the bill itself does not mention the PRC, just as Ythlev said. --Khajidha (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. But how are we going to add this? Cycw (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We aren't. At least not until after the vote.--Khajidha (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Cycw (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I've briefly skimmed through the text, and you're right in that it does not mention the PRC within the bill itself, I stand corrected. My question is that, wouldn't there be quite a difference between merely delimiting different areas of territory (one administered, one not administered) without relinquishing it, and officially de jure stating that the territory is no longer yours? Especially in regards to international relations and diplomacy? --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, the Mainland won't like it. Other countries probably don't care. Cycw (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It practically makes no difference. Kinmen and Matsu are internationally recognised as part of China, but if the PRC invades, that would still not be okay for the international community. Ythlev (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong section...? Cycw (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, both sections are about technicalities and ceremonial facts instead of actual significance. Ythlev (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a recognition of the PRC, it is simply a rewording of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area to remove the explicit reference to reunification. It doesn't change anything to the ROC constitution or to territory claimed by the ROC. To recognize the PRC, the ROC would have to relinquish its own claim to Mainland China, but to do that a three-quarter majority in the Legislative Yuan is required AND over 50% has to agree in a referendum. It's not that easy. De wafelenbak (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, whether the constitution claims mainland China is under dispute. The constitution merely says the territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries. What you are saying is the KMT's interpretion of the constitution. In 1993, DPP legislators argued that mainland China is not included in the "existing national boundaries" mentioned in the constitution. They asked the Judicial Yuan, who has legal power to interpret the Constitution, to clarify this issue. The judical yuan denied to interpret what "existing national boundaries" include, saying this is a significant political question and beyond the reach of judicial review. [83][84] The dispute has not yet been resolved since then. Recently, KMT legislators are still asking the DPP premier and judical yuan nominees to assert that the constitution claims mainland China, while they still avoid making such claims. [85][86]--Visaliaw (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know the DPP actually disputed that (I thought they were only unhappy with it). De wafelenbak (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 May 2020

Change state to country Sherman1647 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki已成管理員霸權牟利工具，隨意封鎖使用者

Wiki已成管理員霸權牟利工具，隨意封鎖使用者 Km212 (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Translation: Wikipedia has already become that admins are being rogue and using the administrative tools to get profit, and randomly blocking users -- Wikipedia is not a forum for random free speech. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Km212: I would tend to agree with this sentiment. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Alternative translation: Wikipedia has become a tool for dominance and personal profit by admins, who block (or lock out) users as they please. Phlar (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Should I bring this up at WP:ANI? Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC) account was a sock puppet of a user blocked in the Chinese Wikipedia. Disruption on the Chinese articles related to Taiwan. Should keep an eye on this. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

For what purpose? Phlar (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Nah, if it weren't a grievance carried over to enwiki like this I'd like to take such claims of abuse seriously. But now he's a blocked user on the Chinese Wikipedia complaining of free speech and other nonsense issues, forget about that. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Lai Ching-te

Lai Ching-te was sworn in today as Vice President of the Republic of China, replacing Chen Chien-jen on May 20th, 2020. Please update soon to ensure timeliness. Check Wikipedia article for VP and Chinese Wikipedia for verification. Also please notify me if you can when the edit is made. Thank you. --AsianHippie (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

(another editor expressing concerns same as above) Lai Ching-te is the new Vice President of the Republic of China, replacing Chen Chien-jen per today. See this news report on ITV website. On the second photo the caption is: President Tsai Ing-wen, center left, waves with Vice President Lai Ching-te after their inauguration ceremony.

Please update the infobox and replace Chen's name with Lai's. Thank you. Flix11 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have updated the infobox. Are any updates required elsewhere and can someone draft a prose update on the recent election? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll do it. May take a few hours since I have quite a few meetings in the morning (such is life under work from home). Thank you for your help in the update! Also, do you know why the article is fully protected now? Too much trolling going on (again)? --AsianHippie (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 May 2020 (3)

Place the {{pp-dispute}} template on the very, very top, as in the following:

Change

{{short description|Country in East Asia}}
{{redirect|Republic of China|the preceding state in mainland China|Republic of China (1912–1949)|the People's Republic of China|China|other uses|Taiwan (disambiguation)|and|Republic of China (disambiguation)}}
{{pp-dispute}}

to

{{pp-dispute}}
{{short description|Country in East Asia}}
{{redirect|Republic of China|the preceding state in mainland China|Republic of China (1912–1949)|the People's Republic of China|China|other uses|Taiwan (disambiguation)|and|Republic of China (disambiguation)}}

Thanks. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 10:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please see MOS:ORDER — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Restructuring of the lead

as above. Please feel free to opine or close this discussion. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

An administrator already answered you... it's done properly per Wikipedia guidelines. And no reason to start a new section about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), you might have misunderstood me, as this discussion is unrelated to the above edit request, but rather to the above RfC. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I did since you said "above" with no mention of the RfC. I put it back as a topic. The RfC has nothing to do with structure, just whether we switch the word "state" with the word "country." Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), yes but the discussion did mention this, and I feel like this is an issue to be dealt with here as well. Nevertheless I'm a bit busy with other things, plus my semi-wikibreak, so I'd come here much less often. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe, that when the Talk:Taiwan#RfC:_Taiwan,_"country"_or_"state" RfC above is closed as "no consensus", which I believe it must because the question is too simple, it will then be appropriate to discuss a restructure of the lede. As above, I believe that the state status dispute belongs in the lede sentence, and that most of the fourth lede paragraph belongs in the article body. The state status dispute is way too important to not mention immediately, and way too complicated to attempt a balanced summary of details in the article lede. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• While I agree with "state"and the reasoning behind it, it's almost a snowball for "country." I'm not sure about changing the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Fyunck(click), yes, I must be been blind to the support for "country". I support it. It will be good for readability. It is, however, weak. I support "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country, and disputed state, in East Asia." I am not sure about the choice between "disputed" and "de facto", but I like "disputed" because it is a better pointer to the details below that can repeat the word "disputed". The will not be treatment in the body about "de facto". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Disputed state" is not a term I've seen used much outside of Wikipedia, and saying "country, and disputed state" is somewhat redundant and flows poorly. A better option would be having the subsequent sentences provide basic detail of the situation. For example, moving the current second and third sentence of the final paragraph to this position. Alternatively, move the entire fourth paragraph to become part of the first paragraph, and have geography/demography in other paragraphs. CMD (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Another way of mentioning the issue early would be to take the second half of the last sentence of the opening paragraph and make it the second sentence: "It is the most populous state/country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)." This would also help establish significance. Kanguole 07:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I like this "It is the most populous state/country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations" idea. It succinctly drives the point home, demonstrates significance, while also not assuming that the reader has prior knowledge of limited recognition states or disputed territories. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this above statement "country" can be used over "state" as it specifically states "not a member of the United Nations", thus being much more accurate than just "Taiwan is a country". Supporting the sentence It is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations., as long as it is cited. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The sentence works fine with either country or state. Presumably it would follow the RfC close. As for sourcing, that sort of sentence should be made up of information that can be sourced in the body. You make a point though that it doesn't seem to be at the moment. CMD (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is any semblance of consistency to be established, the description should most certainly include Country. Reference wiki pages Singapore, Fiji, Cuba, Dominican Republic. Propose the following edit: "is a sovereign country consisting of a group of islands in East Asia. WikiSubjEditor (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSubjEditor (talk • contribs)

Except it is NOT a sovereign country. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 May 2020

Change the Human Development Index (HDI) from 0.880 to 0.911. The 0.911 figure comes from the National Statistics website of Taiwan: https://www.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=33332&CtNode=6020&mp=4 The currently displayed 0.880 figure cites a third-party website database, the Global Data Lab (https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/), which sources its data from an article in the journal Scientific Data (https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201938), yet that article also cites the National Statistics website of Taiwan, which clearly states the HDI for 2018 is 0.911. It is unclear what caused this mistake on the Global Data Lab website. I see that there is already a request for this on the Talk page dating April 2020 but I'm not sure why it hasn't been addressed. Masonwu1995 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: We tend to trust third parties over governments, as a government is always going to give a rosier picture of themselves. If you can get folks to agree that the addition is good by discussing and building consensus, please make another request. But for the time being, I think that is not an appropriate change, especially while under full protection. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What a long route of almost circular citation. I don't saw any point against to use official figure if the citation that wikipedia is currently using, is citing Global Data Lab and in turn a journal article and in turn Taiwan official data. But i would say did World Bank or UN made their own calculation for Taiwan or due to Taiwan is not fully recognize as sovereign state, there is no data from World Bank / UN? (Yet i knew the World Bank database was in fact stating official government data sometimes) Matthew hk (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)