Template talk:Asia topic/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Purpose of Template

Please read Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigational_templates and Wikipedia:Template standardisation. This template falls under Wikipedia:Navigational templates and our focus should be navigation rather than trying to decide which countries are independent or not, or which peoples belong to which other peoples. Readin (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the PRC and ROC fall under China and should be located there in brackets. Tibet should not be listed at all. It is violating WP:NPOV to list any other way. --Joowwww (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That may be one of the most racist thing I have ever heard?!
Why is listing Tibet a violation of NPOV? Nowhere does it say on the page "Tibet should not be listed at all."--Jerrch 21:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, which ironically, is your userpage's motto of the day. I didn't mean to be racist, I meant that this template strikes me as a template for countries, which Tibet is not. --Joowwww (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
How was Joowwww's comment racist? I think he's very wrong to say that having Tibet listed violates NPOV, particularly since Hong Kong and Macau are listed, but how is it racist? Saying it is racist seems out of line. Readin (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I can understand Hong Kong and Macau being listed as they are territories of the PRC. Tibet isn't, it's just a province. If the argument is made that it's included as a geographical area, then why isn't Siberia? Turkestan? Caucasus? Manchuria? Ural? and the many others? --Joowwww (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would have an NPOV problem if those territories were included on the list. Those aren't on the list simply because they don't have enough articles.
Hong Kong and Macau are on the list not just because they are SARs. Tibet should be included on the list because it has a lot of sub-articles (history, culture, people, economy, etc).--Jerrch 22:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This template does not serve as a list of sovereign states or entities, etc. It is a navigational template which connects related articles. Asia isn't a sovereign entity itself, it is merely a geographic and cultural term for the continent. Therefore, the most neutral thing to do would be listing geographic/cultural entities located in Asia, in my opinion.--Jerrch 22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe there should be some criterion for non-sovereign entities to be included in this template. Maybe e.g. the territory in question should have a certain amount of key articles. Another proposal would be to split this template like it is done on the Template:Europe topic where non-sovereign entities are clearly separated from sovereign entities. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 06:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
If there were wide agreement as to which states are sovereign, and indeed which places are states, that might work. I could see some benefit in breaking the list into smaller pieces that are more easily searched. However with Asia such a division will see no end of arguments. Are Hong Kong and Macau "states"? Then where do we put them? Is Taiwan a state? Is it sovereign? Is the Republic of China sovereign? Is Northern Cyprus a state? Is it sovereign? South Ossetia?
This should be a simple list. If we need to break it down into categories, we should pick a way that is less prone to argument. Perhaps we could do it geographically, with sections for East Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, West Asia, Middle East, etc.. There might be some disagreements as to what fits where, but I doubt they'll be as emotionally charged and intractable as arguments about who owns who and who should be allowed to control their own destinies and who shouldn't.
I agree that we should use some criterion other than statehood or sovereignty for inclusion in the template. The amount of interest and the number of articles would be criteria to use. Readin (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If a nation state exercises actual control over a specific piece of territory, there is a good reason for including that territory under the broader definition of the scope of the nation state in question. The People's Republic of China does not control one single square of the Island of Taiwan, and never has. Hence, they are not of the same nation state.

If one wishes to get into broader definitions than the nationstate, such as "Greater China" or some arbitrary definition of "China," then it is necessary to drop the references to national entities. At least, that's my view. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for third party input.

I've requested neutral third party assistance from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I hope it helps us sort thsi out. Readin (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to politely remind you that as one of the WP:Five pillars, NPOV certainly does "trump" ease of navigation. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

seeking concensus

Jhattara's suggestion (as an editing comment) that we work to find concensus rather than simply bowing to his version of things would hold more weight if he had shown any willingess at all to compromise or were actively taking part in this discussion page. As it is, the current edit war is between his preferred template structure, and a compromise version that recognizes both his POV and the POV of those who disagree with. I would remind Jhattara that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort in which NPOV is central and that Template:Asia topic is not his personal property.Readin (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't the way to reach consensus either, Readin. You should take a look at WP:Bold, revert, discuss to see a more accepted way of doing things and remember it for the future. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've been trying to stay in the conversation when something new comes up. My only POV is to keep this template stable and include all entities which have major autonomous functionality in politics, sports and other larger topics. Mainly sovereign states, HK and Macau. I don't personally care if Tibet is there or not, I don't care if is Taiwan listed in two places or not. That's not a point I would start an argument about. But it seems that adding Tibet and adding Taiwan there twice opened yet another political can of worms. There was a short edit war concerning other territories. Maybe this template should be expanded like Template:Europe topic to add a separate section for non-independent territories, which could be made visible where appropriate. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I did overreact. The immediate situation is you had suggested we reach consensus on discussion page but didn't put anything on discussion page at that time. However, I over-stated the case when I said you were unwilling to consider compromise. That wasn't you. Readin (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Unneutral Edit!

My topic here is deleted.

Why do people edit User:Jhattara's edit

Copy my second topic form User talk:Jhattara:

Oh, your view is remove all those additional information. I support you. My view is all these disputed area should be treated the same. I'm confused when I see "Undid revision 233292453 by 虞海 (talk)" in that I don't know you did extra changes. --虞海 (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So my view is: If Taiwan is on the model, Sikkim should be on the model, too. If not, it's not neutral. --虞海 (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How many Sikkim articles there are on the Wikipedia? How important is Sikkim considered by people around the world? Is sikkim such a notable territory that it should be mentioned along with sovereign states? Then ask the same questions about Taiwan. When doing the simple search of "of Sikkim" and "of Taiwan" from Wikipedia the first returns 1240 topics. Taiwan returns more than 10 times that amount. And I'd guess that when asked which is more notable almost 100% would answer Taiwan. So, I don't see any grounds why including Taiwan in this template would imply that Sikkim should also be included in this template. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 11:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I first learned of Taiwan's existence when I was about 7 years old. I still don't know what Sikkim is and I won't know until I look it up. Taiwan is the world's 14th largest economy. Where does Sikkim fall on the list? Readin (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked up Sikkim. Population 0.5 million. That is significantly less than Taiwan's 23 million (Taiwan has more people than Australia). And it looks like Sikkim is a small state in India. Taiwan is a whole country. Even if you just count the island Taiwan, it is close to 99% of the nation-state.
Is "famous" the standard to measure one's importance? Or "population" is the standard to measure one's importance?! Native Sikkimese are going to be ignored and their culture are going to be finished if we don't care about them. Traditional Sikkim culture is a culture at large now! However, there's no any cultural problem in Taiwan. Also, people in Taiwan themselves say they're living in Republic of China. So "China (People's Republic of China [Hong Kong · Macau] · Republic of China [Taiwan])" is enough, we needn't "· Taiwan ·" on it. --虞海 (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Readin is at it again, after failing to gain consensus on the Taiwan issue. This time, he simply makes the disputed edits without bothering to discuss, for perhaps he does recognise that he will fail to gain that consensus if he tries again. Tibet has absolutely no place in this template which is about independent states, or territories with at least some international recognition as one, with the exception of Hong Kong and Macau which receive special treatment as per conventions in numerous published lists of countries in third party sources, as well as in the United Nations. Attempting to pull in Tibet, and questioning the existance of HK and Macau is Readin's way of basically trying to promote the international status of Taiwan. This attempt to push a political POV after the current stable version having been the result of a very extended discussion amongst other editors should be reverted unless a new consensus involving more individuals, especially those from the East Asia region, is found.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

in this template which is about independent states, or territories with at least some international recognition as one, with the exception of Hong Kong and Macau which receive special treatment as per conventions in numerous published lists of countries in third party sources, as well as in the United Nations
Perhaps the problem is that the template is misnamed. Suggest we rename the template to "Template:independent states, or territories with at least some international recognition as one, with the exception of Hong Kong and Macau which receive special treatment as per conventions in numerous published lists of countries in third party sources, as well as in the United Nations" Readin (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well there's no need to get sarcastic. I think the only way this will ever be settled is to limit the template to its original usage of countries and dependent territories. That way there won't have to be constant argument over what constitutes a notable inclusion. --Joowwww (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Readin can be as sarcastic as he likes, for that is precisely what the template is about, and that is also precisely the same entries which usually appears in independent sources.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to a post that started "It appears that Readin is at it again". It was a personal attack. Sarcasm seemed appropriate.
In a more serious vein:
If the purpose of this page is to list countries and dependent territories and definitively say which is which, then it should be deleted as it is a duplicate of information already contained in List of sovereign states and List of countries and this page contains less information.
My understanding is that the page is for navigation, an example of a template:navbox. If that is the case, then we do need criteria for inclusion. A list of countries is a fine way to do it. A list of soveriegn states works too, but we need to be clear whether we're using common names or formal names. If we say countries and dependent territories, then we need to be careful because an awful lot of places can be described as dependent territories.
Regardless of what criteria we use, we need to find a way to do it without taking sides in disputes. Some suggestions:
1. List all the items alphabetically without trying to group them, as the groupings are subject to dispute.
2. If an item's membership in a group is disputed, list it both within the group and outside the group.
I think the key thing to remember is, as others have pointed out, the template is about navigation, not about settling territorial or sovereignty disputes. Readin (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Pointing out that you have again disregarded consensus and sidestepped the consensus-building process cannot be considered a "personal attack".--Huaiwei (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Point 2 is only so you can have Taiwan listed separately. If this happed then China would also have to be listed, as it is also disputed, meaning the list would go "China, People's Republic of China, Republic of China, Taiwan", not including other countries, and also not including "mainland China" as a possible fifth entry, and I would say causes more confusion than anything else. And dependent territories aren't really that disputable, either they are or they aren't. Hong Kong and Macau are, as special administrative regions, Tibet and Sikkim aren't, as a province/state of the PRC/India, respectively. I don't think geographic areas should be listed, as this template is widely used for "x of country" articles, and geographical areas don't have economies, foreign relations, militaries, etc. --Joowwww (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The articles are not listed based on their political status. Tibet should be listed, it is not just a province, or any political division. Tibet is a geographic entity, just like Taiwan and China. It makes no sense to not list geographic areas for this template, as this template is intended for geographic areas.--Jerrch 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Which is exactly my point. How do you define a geographic area? This will create endless debate which is why I suggested only using political areas. My garden is a geographic area, should that be included too? --Joowwww (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Your garden does not has a long history, a claim by somebody and a certain culture. --虞海 (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't my point. My point was that it is impossible to define what constitutes a notable entry as a geographic area, and will only lead to consensus-less debate. My garden has a history of 110 years, before that it was a field, and before that, woodland. --Joowwww (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the history of your garden is not specific enough to list here, and the culture of your garden is not specific enough, too: It's similar to other part of your country. --虞海 (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Joowwww, by your standard that we only list sovereign states and dependent territories, we would need to toss out the China and Korea entries as neither points to an article on an existing sovereign state or dependent territory. Readin (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
meaning the list would go "China, People's Republic of China, Republic of China, Taiwan
The way I see it, it would be "China, China (People's Republic of), China (Republic of), ..., Hong Kong, ... , Macau, ... , Taiwan, ..., Tibet, ...". No POVs would be pushed as to which thing is part of China and which is not. No POVs would be pushed as to which areas are independent, dependent, or sovereign. If someone were looking for an article, they could just go alphabetically and not have to know whether to look under some other subheading. Readin (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Listing "China" and "Taiwan" as distinct entities is in itself POV pushing, so quit claiming that your preferred version is NPOV. The discussions has long acknowledged that each method of presentation will inherently be POV-pushing, but the one which is the most NPOV remains in the format China (People's Republic of China [Hong Kong · Macau] · Republic of China [Taiwan]), without "Tibet" and without "Taiwan" appearing again in the list.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If Hong Kong and Macau are also listed separately, that establishes the pattern that parts of the whole can be listed separate from the whole (unless you think some people believe HK and Macau are not part of China), so a simple listing of Taiwan neither implies that it is part of China (other countries are also listed separately) nor does it imply that Taiwan is not part of China (parts of China like HK and Macau are also listed separately). So how does treating Taiwan exactly the same as Hong Kong, Macau and Japan imply that Taiwan is or is not part of China? Readin (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Readin. Listing China and Taiwan together is also POV pushing. But if we list all of these entities (Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan) separately, there would be no implications of Taiwan not being part of China. This would be the most neutral proposal by far.--Jerrch 19:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Then why not list all provinces in your country here? Why not list Sikkim, here? If Sikkim and some part of your country was listed here (if you think that would be the most neutral method), I don't care if you list Taiwan here. Otherwise, I agree with Huaiwei. --虞海 (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sikkim is an undisputed state of India. Fujian is a province controlled by the PRC but also claimed by the ROC. Taiwan is an island, a province and a different province controlled by the ROC but also claimed by the PRC. --Joowwww (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Sikkim is an disputed State of India. Fujian is a province controlled by the both PRC and ROC (click this to know more). Please find more information before you say something. --虞海 (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Sikkim joined India in 1975 after a referendum showed a 97.5% vote to join, and is now an undisputed part of India after China recognised it as such in 2003. If it wants independence than it is secessionist, not disputed. Perhaps you should read things too. --Joowwww (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you should know 90% of Sikkimese is not Native Sikkimese (at least) now. They're Nepali. So that vote represent Nepal people only, doesnot represent Sikkimese people. --虞海 (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sikkim isn't an independent entity culturally, politically, or economically, it is only a state of India.--Jerrch 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
They have their own culture, but I'm afraid if it's distoried (Just as you said, became a state of India and lost their culture). --虞海 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Sikkim is only a state of India as oppose to Tibet or Taiwan, which are cultural/geographic entities. Tibet and Taiwan are not listed because of their level of autonomy. Sikkim doesn't even have an economy article, I do not see how it is significant enough to be listed.--Jerrch 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Chinese situation is unique and its conventions should not be applied to other states. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"Sikkim doesn't even have an economy article": That means you should write one. --虞海 (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
How do you prove "The Chinese situation is unique"? If so, I can also say the Indian situation is unique. Give me a reason. --虞海 (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese situation regarding HK, and Macau is hardly unique. Throughout history empires have exercised various levels of control of their regions. The situation with Tibet is also not unique. Many countries have been swallowed whole by neighboring empires.Readin (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the HK/Mcau situation is far more unique than that of Taiwan. There has been countless states which were displaced from their original homelands and moved en mass to other lands throughout the history of mankind. On the other hand, how often do we have territories changing hands in accordance to a century-old treaty, and which also allows that territory to enjoy very high levels of sovereignty, including even representation in numerous international bodies accredited by the United Nations?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The Taiwan situation, however, is unique as far as I can tell. In what other situation has an independent sovereign government moved so that the new area controlled is almost complete different from its earlier territory? And that government claimed that the new territory was always the same country as the old territory even though when the government "united" the country of the old territory it didn't include the new territory (ROC united China in the 1920s, but did not control Taiwan).Readin (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
To say that the Taiwan situation is "unique" because "an independent sovereign government moved so that the new area controlled is almost complete different from its earlier territory" suggests unfamiliarity with the Taiwan situation. Taiwan has been formally part of the Qing Dynasty since 1683, until the Japanese occupation in 1895. The Japanese surrendered the island to the ROC in 1945, who has occupied the island ever since. Considering Taiwan was already in the control of the ROC prior to their retreat from the mainland, it was more of a drastic reduction in their area of control, than one suggesting that they moved to a new location which was previously unoccupied.
I am also astonished at how the ROC is being credited for "uniting China in the 1920s". The ROC inherited what the Qing Dynasty controlled at that point in time, when Taiwan was already lost to the Japanese as a result of the Sino-Japanese war. Credit to the last entity in unify a divided China goes to the Yuan Dynasty about 700 years ago. Your theory appears to be off by 7 hundred years!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
And the government continued to claim the old territory and had those claims accepted by most of the world. (ROC continued to claim China and those claims were accepted by most until the 1970s.)
And the new government of the old territory claimed to be the ruler of the new territory, despite never having controlled the new territory, and despite this lack of control most countries around the world pay lip service to these claims. (Most countries and international organizations do not have diplomatic relations with the ROC).Readin (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Most countries today do not merely "pay lip service" to the claims of the ROC. They officially do not recognise it.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
And the old government, finally allowing free and democracy in the new territory, allows the world to see that many people of their new territory consider themselves different and separate from people of the old territory (Taiwan Independence has been around for a long time, but was largely suppressed by the KMT government until the late 1980s). Readin (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like material lifted off the Pan-Green campaign material. Taiwan did not experience true democracy until the 1990s, and doing so haven't told the world anything about the supposed "difference" and "separation" from the mainland. If so, we would be arguing that the Taiwanese people has suddenly found themselves "similar" to the mainland Chinese thanks to the results of the last general election. This is highly simplistic and politically-skewed. The situation of Taiwan's aborigines is no different from the Red Indians in North America, the Orang Asli of Malaysia, or the aborigines of Australia, each eventually dominated by a "migrant race". For this dominant migrant race to claim genetic links with these aborigines at the expense of any genetic links with the mainland amounts to nothing more than political gimmicks unsupported by scientific evidence.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the pieces described above may not be unique, but taken as a whole it is a unique situation. Perhaps the biggest oddity is that so many years after the facts on the ground have established two separate nations, many of the world's nations and organizations pretend this reality doesn't exist. While some may reasonably argue that Taiwan is culturally part of a single country called "China" just like N. and S. Korea are part of a single country called "Korea", N. and S. Korea are still formally recognized as two separate nation-states. That the reality of Taiwan's independent political status has been studiously ignored for so long is pretty unusual. Readin (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
To put it simply, since when is it wikipedia's business to resolve this "unusual situation" that you point out?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese situation is completely different from the situation in India. In China there are two de facto independent nations, which both (at least officially) claim to hold sovereignty over the regions that are de facto under the other nation's control. In addition there are multiple regions that have serious aspirations for independence. And finally two semi-independent special administrative regions. Politically China is a very complex entity and reaching a full consensus on the situation is next to impossible. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 07:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
So that you can't call it "Republic of China (Taiwan)" because there is Fujian Province, Republic of China. You shoult call it "Republic of China (Taiwan & Fujian)" and ther shouldn't be a "... · Taiwan · ...". --虞海 (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan is a commonly used name for ROC as whole. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to show how complex the China situation is, even Jhattara's good faith attempt to lay out the complexities in an unbiased way showed bias. He said "In China there are two de facto independent nations". Others would say that there are two independent nations using the word "China" in their formal names, but only one of them is in fact in China. The other is in Taiwan. One of the complexities is that the situation used to be viewed as bipolar. There were the Communist Chinese in mainland China, and the Nationalist Chinese in Taiwan, with both claiming to be the sole legitimate government of all of China, including Taiwan. But with the introduction of free speech and democracy in Taiwan, it became clear that the many native Taiwanese who were voiceless during the time of repression had yet another view, that Taiwan is separate from China and that the Nationalist Chinese were another colonial government like the Japanese. And as in any good democracy where free speech and debate allow people to form their own opinions, there are many beliefs in between. Readin (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
"Others would say that there are two independent nations": Not two nations, two regimes I think. --虞海 (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"Taiwan is a commonly used name for ROC as whole.": "Common" is not "should", anyway. --虞海 (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that Taiwan should not be the common name of the ROC? Well, you can work on that yourself, I believe Wikipedia is not a site for you to seek "political justice".--Jerrch 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, nor is Wikipedia a place for you to use "commonly used name": it's a professional encyopedia. Nevertheless I was finding "neutral" not "political justice". --虞海 (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is indeed a place to use "commonly used names". We list "Russia", not "Russian Federation". We list "Burma", not "Union of Myanmar". Readin (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not: "Russia" is the short of "Russian Federation" officially; also, "Burma" is the short of "Union of Myanmar" officially. --虞海 (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"but only one of them is in fact in China. The other is in Taiwan.": That's only your opinion. Just like something is only my opinion, your opinion is not the same as "Wikipedia neutral view". --虞海 (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is indeed a place to...": This sentence has been moved upward since it's the answer to my reply before this. --虞海 (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The most serious problem of Sikkim is not economy, but culture. After occupied by India, the Economy of Sikkim is better, but their culture is in danger. --虞海 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is not Wikipedia's job to save a certain culture.--Jerrch 22:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
If what you said is right, we shouldn't place Tibet here. Nonetheless Tibetan culture is well protected here. At least it is Wikipedia's job to record every certain culture. --虞海 (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

East Timor

I've removed Timor-Leste from the template. This isn't out of POV or anything, but simplicity: all Foo of Timor-Leste pages should redirect to Foo of East Timor pages while the title of the country's main article remains East Timor. Consensus from the "Burma/Myanmar" dispute maintains that all articles and categories follow whatever the country article's title is at that time (with the exception of proper names like Myanmar Armed Forces). Does anybody mind my application of the same principle to the East Timor/Timor-Leste dispute? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I mind the fact that you have removed both Myanmar and Timor Leste from the template. I would not consider "simplicity" as a strong argument in this case.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a solution

I see that we are not progressing anywhere. I still think that the main part of this template should be reserved for sovereign entities. What about looking for an example from the Template:Europe topic and put a separate area for non-sovereign entities, no matter what their level of sovereignty is.

Dependencies, autonomies and other territories: Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, Taiwan, China, Korea, Northern Cyprus, Palestinian territories.

Sovereign states (above the former entry): the rest

That way only disputed entry in the Sovereign states part would be that of the Republic of China, but as it is the official name of a previously widely recognized nation that hasn't been dissolved and still has a moderate de jure and wide de facto recognition, I think it should still be among the sovereign states. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 09:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem still exist: will Sikkim and Taiwan be together? How about South Tibet? --虞海 (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think Sikkim would still be excluded because it doesn't have [to my knowledge] any kind of special status within India when compared to other Indian states. To South Tibet I have no comment other than I think it's too minor region to be included in this teamplte. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 10:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The special status is that Sikkim is disputed by Palden Thondup Namgyal, the emperor of Sikkim. Also, "Sikkim joined India in 1975 after a referendum showed a 97.5% vote to join" because 90% of those are Nepali. So the vote is still disputed. --虞海 (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"it's too minor region": Vatican is even smaller, but it's in Template:Europe --虞海 (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support: The proposed solution sounds good and fair. Especially with regard to Taiwan, it is very similar to what the common Wikipedia solution has been when listing sovereign states. The "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is listed in the 'T' section and the "People's Republic of China" is listed in the 'C' section. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Republic_of_China.2C_Taiwan.2C_and_variations_thereof for details.

Generally following the established convention of alphabetizing countries under their common names, the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) should be alphabetized under "T" while the People's Republic of China should be alphabetized under "C". The former can be listed, depending on context, either as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)".

We can, of course, keep the footnote saying that the ROC's sovereignty is disputed. Readin (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, our dear Readin decides to follow a convention whoes NPOV has remained disputed to this day.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Template without ambiguous and contentious "geographic areas"

1st level autonomous areas only, as per Template:Europe topic. I've missed loads of autonomous areas but you get the idea. Obviously this isn't the final code. PRC and ROC listed under "C", as per List of Asian countries. --Joowwww (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll see if I can get it fixed. Readin (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't mind this solution either. I'm not that fond of China and Korea entries, although both have extensive amounts of articles, that just cannot be squeezed to PRC/ROC or NK/SK articles. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 13:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Well if anybody wants to make a "Template:Geographic areas of Asia" then by all means proceed. Let's keep this one to sovereign and non-sovereign. --Joowwww (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to try, but, just so I understand correctly, if the new template were {{Asia region topic}}, what kinds of links would it carry? I'm thinking that if {{Asia topic}} then became more like {{Europe topic}}, i.e. with the separate sovereign and non-sovereign sections, would {{Asia topic}}'s non-sovereign section be "Dependencies and autonomies" not "Dependencies, autonomies, other territories" because the "other territories" would fall into {{Asia region topic}}..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Well "other territories" refers to administrative territories as opposed to geographical ones, see Territory (administrative division) for clarification. For a non-sovereign entry to appear the area should have its own degree of autonomous self-governance, so I suppose it depends on its political status. Tibet would be listed on {{Asia topic}} under autonomous area as the Tibet Autonomous Region but not as the larger historical area of Tibet, which isn't governed by a single government, as it's in exile. Likewise Siberia as a whole has no government so it wouldn't appear on {{Asia topic}}, but it would appear on a geographical area template. --Joowwww (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
While this approach may show a logical consistency, it would not well serve people looking for information on Taiwan or China, which are two nations (and those are the names most people know them by) that people are likely to be interested in, particularly the latter.
The purpose of the template is navigation, and that's what it should facilitate.Readin (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again. Readin, NPOV always comes before ease-of-navigation. The sovereign states are called "The People's Republic of China" and "The Republic of China". It doesn't matter what they are commonly called, NPOV is a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy. It is one of the five pillars. I don't understand why you are having such a hard time realising this. Calling the PRC "China" and the ROC "Taiwan" is clear POV. This is the reason that the China article isn't about just the PRC and the Taiwan article isn't about the ROC. --Joowwww (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Who decided that this had to be a list of sovereign states? That's what I'm saying the problem is. Feel free to make a template {{Asia sovereign state topic}} or {{Asia sovereign state and dependent territory topic}}. Those aren't the name of this topic so it doesn't have to be a list of sovereign states. It is a navigational template, and if navigating by sovereign state and dependent territory only makes it impossible to support both NPOV and navigation, then we should change how the navigation is supported.
We don't have to take a position on what China and Taiwan are (sovereign states, geographic regions, dependencies, whatever) but we should find a way to include them in the topic as they are something people will look for.Readin (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Then perhaps you'd like to discuss template titles, content and use with the editors over at {{North America topic}}, {{South America topic}}, {{Europe topic}} and {{Africa topic}}. Like I said, feel free to make a new geographic area-based template, but Template:Continent topic templates cover sovereign states. --Joowwww (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The {{Europe topic}} template has been adapted to deal with a particular issue they have - the United Kingdom being composed of the well-known Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England. So it isn't completely consistent with the other templates. We have a different set of issues and may adapt differently. As you've pointed out, NPOV is more important than consistency. If the {{Asia topic}} has to choose between NPOV usefulness and NPOV consistency with the other templates, I think we should choose usefulness. Readin (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is. How is the choice of including UK home nations on the Europe template relevant to this discussion? It's still a template of sovereign states and autonomous regions only. --Joowwww (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think it would be better for this template to follow Template:Oceania topic, which sorts the entities geographically. "Asia" is a geographic term, not a political one, so why are we sorting the entities politically?--Jerrch 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be quite hard to accomplish, I think. There has been and is still heavy debate over certain countries' geographical locations. Is Afghanistan in Central Asia, South Asia or the Middle East? Besides, the Oceania template is also based on political entities, and a layout like that would make it difficult or confusing to list autonomous areas, especially if a state could be said to be in three different regions. --Joowwww (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
And whether we arrange this template like Europe topic or like Oceania topic, it would still include only sovereign states or special regions within those sovereign states. Only difference would be in telling which specific region of Asia each entity would belong to. And IMHO ease of navigation is better accomplished by alphabetizing all the entries, instead of making several separate alphabetical lists. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I still think sovereign and non-sovereign should be kept separate. It would be confusing to list them together. --Joowwww (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
How would it be confusing to list them together? People shouldn't be looking at this navigation box as a source of information as to which entities are sovereign and which are not. They shouldn't be looking at it as a way to tell which entities are democracies and which are not. listing sovereign and non-sovereign together is no more confusing than listing democracies and non-democracies together, landlocked and coastal and islands together, or industrialized and non-industrialized together. Whether an entity is sovereign is only one characterteristic of it. Why should we assume that people trying to navigate will be confused by having entities with different characteristics listed together? Readin (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't talking about keeping sovereign/non-sovereign together, but rather about keeping western asia and eastern asia together. In Europe topic (which I would prefer) the distinction is made by whether the entity is sovereign, and in Oceania topic the distinction is made by which region of Oceania the entity is in. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 14:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, then we are in agreement! :-) --Joowwww (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the above format is when you start to list an entry in the first tier, and when the second. Why, for example, is Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the second tier when the ROC is in the first? What level of "autonomy" is required do we begin to grant an entry in the second tier? Aceh? Jeju? Muslim Mindanao? And are we going to start listing the republics, krais, autonomous okrugs and autonomous oblasts of Russia which fall within geographic Asia? I feel sticking to the status quo is still the best foot forward. As much as it needs constant debates with those clamouring to include or exclude entries, sticking to one primary criteria helps to resolve most disputes.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

ROC is a very special case, not really comparable to the other territories. Although it's de jure mostly unrecognized country, de facto several nations (including e.g. US) recognize it unofficially. Abkhazia, South Ossetia and TRNC on the other hand are breakaway regions recognized only by the nation that with military force helped them to break away, and all of them are completely dependent of their patron. In the second part can be listed e.g. all disputed areas, areas which have a special level of autonomy and those that have serious aims for independence. From Russia e.g. that would mean either none or the most autonomous subdivisions. Aceh, Jeju-do and Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao e.g. seem like good additions due to their status, although I suspect that none of those would have many articles. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 06:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"Special cases" or "levels of autonomy" should be determined not by criteria established by wikipedians, but by looking at conventional norms in third party publications. The identity of these recognising states, or the circumstance surrounding their status, should and must not be used as a determining factor as long as we follow the principals of NPOV. As a matter of fact, I am heavily critical of Russia's actions in Georgia, but this doesn't mean I attempt to twist inclusion or presentation criteria to suit my political inclinations or opinions by giving them differing treatment. A template which attempts to list every entity which aspires to be independent is obviously going to run into serious trouble very soon. I would therefore state that I oppose the above proposal strongly, for the sake of ensuring we ultimately have a reasonably stable template which confirms to NPOV.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. And in third party sources that I have seen Republic of China is almost always handled as an independent state, while TRNC is almost always handled as an illegal breakaway area belonging legally to Cyprus. I wouldn't mind including South Ossetia, Abkhazia and TRNC in this template, as long as it is made 100% clear that they are not generally considered as de jure independent states. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 09:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Added "Sikkim" and "South Tibet & Tawang / Arunachal Pradesh" like this. See what I said at Template_talk:Asia_topic#Proposal_for_a_solution, 09:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC). --虞海 (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And there you go. A live example of the very problem I just discussed above.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really a problem. 虞海, Sikkim is not a disputed country just because some people think so. Some people think Cornwall should be independent from England but it doesn't mean it's disputed. That's why it doesn't appear on the Europe template. See List of active autonomist and secessionist movements for the complete list.
Well, then, don't place Tibet here since Tibet is also not a disputed reigon just because some people think so. Even Indian map places Tibet as a part of China. --虞海 (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Tibet isn't listed as a disputed region, it's listed as an autonomous area. Sikkim has no autonomy. --Joowwww (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A degree of common sense should be applied here in deciding what goes where. Not everything is black and white. That's what consensus is for. --Joowwww (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Levels of autonomy?

Why are we using the levels of autonomy as a criterion to determine which entities should be listed on this template?

Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet are not listed because of their levels of autonomy, but because of their own cultural/economic/historic distinction from other entities. This is the reason why Taiwan should also be listed. None of these entities are sovereign states, but they are in fact separate entities (i.e. they have their own culture, history, economy, languages, music, etc).--Jerrch 16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is listed as the Republic of China. --Joowwww (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't, it should be listed by itself. Taiwan should not be listed as a common name or a province, it should be listed as an entity. It could be clarified in the footnote area that its status is disputed, but it needs to be on the template.--Jerrch 17:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking about the template as it is now or the proposal above? --Joowwww (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about the proposed template, which does not have Taiwan listed at all.--Jerrch 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The proposed template doesn't list geographic or cultural areas. It lists sovereign states and their autonomous areas and dependencies. The Republic of China entry has a footnote that it is commonly known as Taiwan. --Joowwww (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I noticed that Taiwan as it stands has 2 entries: "ROC [Taiwan]" and "Taiwan" by itself. This is so confusing. Can we have a footnote next to both Taiwans and say "Taiwan's status is disputed. See Political Status of Taiwan."--Pyl (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not confusing because this template is a navigational aid and no inferences about sovereignty are made by it. The reason Taiwan appears twice is because of its disputed status and the fact that some people will look for it under "C" for "China" while the overwhelming majority of people will look for it under "T" for "Taiwan". To the extent that anyone would make judgements about Taiwan's membership in "China" (sovereign state or not) based on this template, we are following the NPOV principle of providing all POVs by listing Taiwan both as part of China and as independent of China. Readin (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said it is confusing. I have given reasons earlier and in short it makes people think that Taiwan and ROC [Taiwan] are two different countries. I think the current proposed template below (but with the ROC sorted under the letter T) is a good compromise. There is a footnote saying the ROC is commonly known as Taiwan then people will find it.--Pyl (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I just noticed Joowwww's latest comment. I agree with him. The list as it is doesn't list geographic or cultural areas. It really lists political divisions. It makes no sense that Taiwan is listed by itself as a separate entry when ROC [Taiwan] is already listed. The dual entry for Taiwan is really confusing. It can suggest that ROC and Taiwan are two different countries.
  • The State which Taiwan resides in is called the "ROC". The ROC is commonly known in the English speaking world as Taiwan. There are countries in the world that recognise the ROC as a country, but no country recognises "Taiwan" as a country. Taiwan as a country is a political view, not a neutral view. No government or legal document in Taiwan, whether it is under KMT government or DPP government, says Taiwan is a country. Taiwan is a common name for the ROC but it is not the official or legal name for the ROC. That's a neutral fact.
  • I think we should point out the fact that the political status of Taiwan is disputed but neutrally speaking, "Taiwan" shouldn't be listed as another separate when ROC [Taiwan] is already there.
  • There are people whose political belief is that Quebec is a separate country from Canada or Scotland is separate from the UK, but neither Quebec nor Scotland is listed as a separate entry. The neutral fact is Quebec is governed by Canada and Scotland is governed by the UK. Taiwan is governed by the ROC.
  • If there are people who aren't comfortable with Taiwan being part of China, then
instead of the following:-
China (People's Republic of China [Hong Kong · Macau · Tibet] · Republic of China [Taiwan])
maybe we can do the following:-
People's Republic of China [Hong Kong · Macau · Tibet] · Republic of China [Taiwan]
This way, there is no suggestion that Taiwan is part of China and, at the same time, it doesn't suggest that Taiwan is not part of China. This is neutral.
  • Alternatively, we can do what Africa, Europe, North America and South America do which have separate entries for sovereign states and dependencies, autonomies and other territories. I don't see why Asia should be layed out as is, which is illogical and different from the majority.--Pyl (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent points Pyl. I think that all we really have to decide is (1) whether to keep or discard the super-entities Korea and China and (2) whether to separate non-independent entities from sovereign states or not. If the non-independent entities are separated it makes room for more such entities, than in a list where they are mixed with sovereign entities. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 11:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Ditch Korea and China, and separate sovereign from non-sovereign, as per the proposal above. --Joowwww (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I noted Jerry said the following earlier:-
"I cannot accept the first proposal you have. To list Taiwan under ROC would be POV regardless of whether ROC rules Taiwan or not, because we are forcing the readers to accept the view that Taiwan is part of the Republic of China politically, culturally, economically, etc. Let alone the fact that the ROC is only part of the Taiwanese history."
  • I don't think this view is sound. Taiwan *is* part of the Republic of China politically, culturally, economically etc. We are not forcing readers to accept that. That is a fact. The states of the United States of America, Commonwealth of Australia, Dominion of New Zealand etc are also only part of the histories of these places. By that logic, should we all link all entries to places instead of the political states? I think that has taken the argument too far. As I said earlier this list is an inherently a list of political divisions, not general geographic areas--Pyl (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan is not the same as the ROC culturally, economically, or historically. It is not a fact that Taiwan is only the common name of the ROC. Taiwan already existed before the establishment of the ROC, and developed its own culture, economy, and history without the ROC.
The situation of Taiwan/ROC should not be compared with the US or Australia. The ROC underwent territories so dramatically that its pre- and post-1949 almost do not overlap. Also, I don't see why Hong Kong, Tibet, and Macau should be listed if Taiwan isn't.--Jerrch 23:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, please note that Tibet is not listed because it is an autonomous region of China, but because it is an independent entity. This template should not be organized politically.--Jerrch 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The indigenous people of North America, New Zealand and Australia also developed their culture, economy and history before the USA, the Dominion and the commonwealth. I don't see why Taiwan is different from those places.
I don't see why the change of ROC territory has any relevance to this issue. Even if it is relevant (which again I don't see), you will note that the US and Australia also experienced an drastic change in their territories. By that logic, we should treat places like Calfornia (acquired from Mexico, and earlier conquered from the indigenous people), Hawaii, Northern Territory of Australia, etc etc differently like Taiwan too.
Hong Kong and Macau should be listed because they are SARs of the PRC. I personally don't think that Tibet should be listed unless all automonous regions of the PRC are listed. If we make an exception only for Tibet, then we are ignoring the special cultural positions of other regions. Taiwan is not listed because it is legally Taiwan province of the ROC. There is also a Fukien province under the jurisdiciton of the ROC too. Taiwan is a common name for the ROC but it is not the formal name.
I believe that saying Tibet should be listed because it is a different entity overlooks the uniqueness of other regions. I find the indigenous people in Taiwan, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc pretty unique too. For example, the Indigenous Taiwanese had their special culture, hisotry and economy before the Han Chinese came along. In Taiwan, I have heard that some indigenous Taiwanese want their area to be independent of the ROC. By that logic, we should have a separate entry for those areas too.--Pyl (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There are articles on the history, economy, education, culture, music, languages of Taiwan. The template is supposed to serve as a navigational aid that lists entities that have those distinctions. Taiwan is merely listed as a common name of the ROC. It is really not just a common name.
Again, Hong Kong and Macau are not listed because of their political status or levels of autonomy. They have a lot of sub-articles, which should really be the criterion to determine whether an entity should be listed or not.--Jerrch 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Jerrch, but NPOV is more important than getting the purpose of the box right or including everything that should be included. The compromise that was reached at least is pretty close to NPOV (it would be closer if "Republic of China (Taiwan)" were used instead of having the "Taiwan" information in a foot note). Given the stridency of some of the editors and the numbers against us, I think this was the best we could hope for.
If you want to continue the battle for making this template fullfill its purpose as a Navbox, you should probably first take it up somewhere else like Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_templates. If you can get clarification of the purpose of navigational templates from a neutral crowd, perhaps that will carry some weight here. As for me on this page, I'm glad to give it a rest. It was taking too much of my time. Readin (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
earlier Jerrch said :-
"Taiwan is merely listed as a common name of the ROC. It is really not just a common name."
This sentence has been repeated numberous times but I haven't yet seen a reply to my subsequent arguments to that. You raised historical, economic, educational, cultrual etc arguments but there were no arguments made to distinguish Taiwan from North America, Australia, etc before the respective states were created in those places. As I said, the indigenous peoples of those places are as special as those in Taiwan.
I appreciate that Taiwan as an island has it's own related articles separate from the ROC, by clicking on the "Taiwan" link the readers will be referred to these articles. But this table as well as most others list entries by their political identities. Currently, the ROC is that identity relating to Taiwan. If that changes, wikipedia can change that accordingly.
I support the movement to let the world know that Taiwan exist and it is not merely just part of the PRC, as the PRC government makes it. But, by doing that, it doesn't mean Wikipedia has to give undue weight to political pushes that:-
  • is controversial even within Taiwan itself;
  • has no consensus within Taiwan; and
  • has no official or legal authority.
I believe the HK and Macau are listed because they qualify under "other territories". Taiwan is listed under sovereign states as the ROC. That is correct, because Taiwan is the common name for the governing state but it is not the correct name. I believe it is patronising to the readers to list Taiwan instead of the ROC. The readers are entitied to know the correct thing (which is the official name) even though it is not commonly used internationally. Alternatively, by listing Taiwan and ROC separately, as I said numberous times, creates a false impression that they are different countries.
Readin I think there is a misunderstanding. My statements which you relied to above was written before the current table was agreed to.--Pyl (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are still missing my point, Pyl. The political or legal status of Taiwan or any other entities does not matter for this template. Just because Taiwan is not an independent state does not mean it is not an independent entity. I am not taking a stand on whether Taiwan is part of China or not (or any other ROC/PRC disputes) at this point of discussion. I am only concerned with the POV issues caused by the inclusion of Taiwan as only a common name.--Jerrch 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal with working code

Edit here. --虞海 (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Like {{Europe topic}} it lists republics of Russia, and I've added autonomous areas of Indonesia. --Joowwww (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. The list doesn't say whether Taiwan is part of China. And it also gives a footnote that the Republic of China is commonly known as Taiwan.--Pyl (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks pretty close, although it's missing at least Egypt. But generally the template is very good. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 16:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've added Egypt. --Joowwww (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, Taiwan should not be listed merely as a common name. It should be on the template just like any other entities.--Jerrch 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with it by the reasons I gave above. Taiwan is a common name for the ROC but it is not a formal name. As I mentioned numberous times, "Taiwan" as country is a political push and has no legal or governmental backings. Where do we draw the line if we are not going to rely on the legal or governmental authorities? I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia list Taiwan because there are strong beliefs that Taiwan is a country (instead of or in addition to the ROC), although there are no authorities to rely on. Some people believe strongly that Quebec or Scotland is a country too.

I noted that you mentioned earlier that Ma said "Taiwan is a sovereign state" during his election champaign. He did. But he used Taiwan as a common name for the ROC. I never saw him using Taiwan as the formal name of a country in any context. I never saw the DPP government used Taiwan as the formal name of a country either. The DPP official say it in their political speeches but they never put it down formally on government papers.

If the DPP government draw a line with Taiwan being the common name for the ROC but it is not the official name, I don't see why Wikipedia should push it further than them. That, in my view, is really in violation of the NPOV policy.

Since Taiwan isn't a formal name of a country, please let me know why Quebec, Scotland or other similar regions shouldn't have a separate entry but Taiwan should.--Pyl (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This proposal will be acceptable if we follow established precedent, protocols, policy and especially NPOV by listing the Republic of China under "T" and clarifying that it is what most people know as "Taiwan". The "People's Republic of China" is listed in the 'C' section. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Republic_of_China.2C_Taiwan.2C_and_variations_thereof for details.
Generally following the established convention of alphabetizing countries under their common names, the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) should be alphabetized under "T" while the People's Republic of China should be alphabetized under "C". The former can be listed, depending on context, either as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)".
I realize there is a strong desire to deny the reality that Taiwan is the name most people know ROC by. But that's reality, and it is a neutral reality. The official POVs you mention are also realities. Both must be recognized. It is not our job to push the POV of anyone, not even governments or sovereign states. They may have their POV. Heck, the official POV of the Republic of China is that even Mongolia is governed by it.
The note about the disputed status of the ROC/Taiwan is fine and necessary if we are to make this an article about the sovereignty and political status of states and territories in Asia.
I'm willing to accept that compromise, but that doesn't make it right. This should not be an article. Articles have lots of text and room to explain the subtleties of various points of view. This should be a navigational aid. But if we must make it something it shouldn't be, we must at least be neutral about it.
The ongoing attempts to portray Taiwan as a part of China and only a part of China are breaking the spirit of NPOV. Readin (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your reluctant support. I can accept the alphabetizing convention.
I am not denying the reality that Taiwan is the common name for the ROC. In fact, I think for article where the ROC is not defined, we should say "(commonly known as Taiwan)" for the readers. The reality is, if we don't say that, most readers think the relevant article is about the PRC.
Countries make claims and they can be seemed to be quite unreasonable. Mogolia and the ROC is an example. I think it is the position of wikipedia to mention the position without making any judgements on it. The judgements should be made by the readers. In this case, there is no official position which states that Taiwan is the name of the country. So we don't say that it is.
I am not making an attempt to portray Taiwan being part of China or otherwise. My personal belief is that the people of Taiwan should be allowed to choose their own future. However, the current reality is that Taiwan is part of the Republic of China, and Taiwan is a common (but not the interchangeable) name of the ROC. As I mentioned earlier, if one day the people of Taiwan decide to change their constitution or relevant laws to make Taiwan name of their country, I would be quite happy to accept that. But in the meantime, I don't think we should state things in wikipedia that aren't backed up by official positions or relevant laws when it is about the name of a country. In which case, I would consider it misleading to the readers.--Pyl (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
So basically we seem to agree with the format above with the small modification of alphabetizing ROC in T? If no one protests to this new format I think we could make the change in a few days. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 09:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. Not "basically". We should use official name. --虞海 (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please change "Commonly known as Taiwan. But there's also Fujian (ROC)" to just "Commonly known as Taiwan". The ROC (including both provinces of Taiwan and Fukien) is commonly known as "Taiwan".
Also, I believe the consensus is that "Republic of China" should be sorted according to "T" alphabetically. Thank you for the work.--Pyl (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If you do so, it'll confuse people if there's only Taiwan in ROC. Then it should be marked as Template:Weasel. --虞海 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't. To do so will be making a mistake that is so marginal which makes it unreasonable. In day to day usage, Taiwan is a common name for the ROC which includes both provinces. That's the neutral and accepted usage. To make a distinction, in my view, is playing politics, which is also in violation of the Wikipedia rules.
  • I also object to the proposed unilateral moving of the ROC from being sorted by T alphabetically to by C. That is against the consensus cited by Readin above.--Pyl (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
For the first point, it's only puting a label on me because Pyl didn't say the reason why it's unreasonable. I agree Taiwan is a common name for the ROC which includes both provinces, but common name is never official name. --虞海 (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I note that you conceded that "Taiwan is a common name for the ROC which includes both provinces".
I never said it is the official name. Why is that sentence even relevant here? "Taiwan" as a common name for the ROC (including both provinces) is important enough to mark so readers don't get confused. Does the common name "China" for the PRC really mean PRC controls the whole of the histroic China? It is not an accurate common name, is it? "Common name" means that's the name most people know it by, but it is not necessarily correct.--Pyl (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I did never agree that "common" should be "incorrect". --虞海 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
For the second point, I've replied at "I've read Readin's...". --虞海 (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I refer you to my previous comments, in particular those made on 2-3 September 2008.--Pyl (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's all issues sorted out. I'll request the template to be changed. --Joowwww (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


To replace {{Asia topic}}'s existing code with that located at (link to sandbox removed), with the addition of the following code at the end:
</noinclude>{{#if:{{{2|}}}{{{suffix|}}}|[[Category:Region topic template using suffix]]}}

Many thanks. --Joowwww (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


Should Taiwan also be on this template as a navigable entry? If so adding it to the list of "Dependencies, autonomies, other territories" would probably be most appropriate, or? --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 09:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were done with this subject. Please leave the template relating to Taiwan/ROC as is.

虞海's proposals on this subject are in obvious violation of the established Wikipedia policy/consensus by the reason I gave above. In relation to his other suggestions, I have no opinion at this moment. --Pyl (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out that Readin's description of that particular guideline as "policy" was inaccurate. --Joowwww (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
How so?--Pyl (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between "policy" and "guideline". At the top of the Chinese naming conventions it says it should "be treated with common sense and the occasional exception".--Joowwww (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not common sense in the English language to sort "Republic of China" according to T alphabetically. I personally think it is playing politics, but I don't think I would at this stage advocate for "occasional exception" in this matter. I think there are people who feel strongly about this.
To point out the obvious, Taiwanese independence can't be achieved by having Taiwan listed away from China. At the same time, Chinese reunification won't happen by putting Taiwan right next to China either. It is disappointing Wikipedia in this case becomes a playground for political movements, instead of just telling facts as neutrally as possible.--Pyl (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Taiwan" is neither a sovereign state, a dependency, nor an autonomous area. "The Republic of China" is listed under sovereign states, and has a footnote saying it is commonly known as Taiwan. Why do we keep having to have this discussion? --Joowwww (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use "Sovereign states or regimes": There're lots of people think both PRC and ROC are 2 regimes of China, which is a country. Also, some people think N.Korea and S.Korea are 2 regimes of Korea, which is a country. --虞海 (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
How many is a lot? There is a reasonable portion of the world population who doesn't agree with your position. Therefore, to be neutral, Wikipedia says nothing and takes no position.--Pyl (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is a weasel word. But do you get this: Country is a subset of regime, and writing "Sovereign states or regimes" does not imply Korea is one country. As a result, both your group and my group are satisfied. --虞海 (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not. The article never said things like "some would say.....", "most believe....". As I said below, I think you have made an incorrect interpretation of the weasel-word article. Yes, by putting Korea there it means Korea is "Sovereign states or regimes". I don't believe Korea is reunified yet (and maybe they never want to) so it is unnecessary to note that. To do so, Wikipedia will be taking a position that is not neutral--Pyl (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there IS a kind of weasel word called Some people say that weasel words are great! However, here's another kind word(word with WP:D) also leads unneutral: just like what you said: "Taiwan is part of China = Taiwan is part of the PRC". --虞海 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No, not at all. "Commonly known as Taiwan" doesn't assert that the ROC is in fact Taiwan. It just guides the readers how to find the right entity. As I said, please re-read the article on this subject.--Pyl (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1. "doesn't assert" is only your opinion; 2. A new weasel word appear: some people say that ROC is commonly known as Taiwan (with a inconvincing interior reference). --虞海 (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's just give this a break.--Pyl (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Give something a break is a method for those who're always satisfied with status in quo. So I disagree because it's unfair to those who always want to improve things. --虞海 (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I appears to me that you are making a personal allegation against me for being "unfair to those who always want to improve things", because I said we should give this a break. This is a baseless allegation. I find this offensive and I ask you to withdraw.
Taiwan's legal position has been on the status quo since about 1949. There is nothing to change or "improve", otherwise we can be described as making stories. This is an encyclopedia, not a political forum. If one wants to "improve" things, he or she should join a political party and go from there.--Pyl (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well you didn't get my idea: When something is disputed, someone (is) satisfied and someone not satisfied. Those who're satisfied of course want to stop talking and sleep at home. It's unfair to those who're not. --虞海 (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that a sentence like "Well you didn't get my idea:" constitutes a withdraw of a possible personal allegation. I await your withdraw.
For the rest of your paragraph, I don't think I "want to stop talking and sleep at home" or being "unfair to those who're not". I believe this verges onto the territory of another possible personal allegation. I believe I am writing replies to your comments so I am not ignoring you.--Pyl (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if you really do think so, I withdraw all those. But I'll throw a new sentence: You shouldn't ignore anyone's reply, or else it's either you "want to stop talking and sleep at home" or you want to have a relax and during the relax you need to endow other with ability to edit the article (till the time you reply). --虞海 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


I've read Readin's "I realize there is a strong desire to deny the reality..." but I didn't get his idea. Why "is a neutral reality"? Why "Heck, the official POV of the Republic of China is that even Mongolia is governed by it."? Why ... "The ongoing attempts to portray Taiwan as a part of China and only a part of China are breaking the spirit of NPOV.": But it officially portrayed themselves as a part of (R.O.) China: they said Taiwan (as well as Fujian) is a province of ROC. What you need to warn is not to say any sentence like "Taiwan is a part of PRC", in order to avoid POV. --虞海 (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the government of Taiwan officially calls itself "Republic of China" has been pointed out many times. There are many reasons this is not a sufficient argument to say Taiwan is part of China. What is a name? A silverfish is neither silver nor fish. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic.
It is very important to understand that "official" is not a synonym for "neutral". For a long time, Stalin was officially a great leader of Russia. Mao is officially still a wonderful guy. The Indiana state legislature in 1897 nearly made pi officially 3.2 (the Indiana House approved the bill by 67 to 0).
For many years the debate was portrayed as simply between the Chinese of the PRC and the Chinese of the ROC who argued over which government was the legitimate government of all of China including Taiwan. Democracy and free speech have since come to Taiwan and a third view is now heard from the Taiwanese - that Taiwan is not a part of China. Taiwan is divided over the issue so changes to the "official" position are difficult to make, but that fact that the legacy official position is still around doesn't mean that it reflects the points of view of everyone or even most people in Taiwan. Readin (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I mention the official name of ROC because the official name was given by the official people in Taiwan. So it represent that most people there agree Taiwan is a part of China but they fear it confused people because some people [who?] think China = PRC. As a consequence, some/most of them revolt saying "Taiwan is a part of China". However, when we add "(not be confuse with PRC)" or "(but there's also ROC)", it's better, nevertheless still not (most think) neutral. --虞海 (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That the official name of the ROC remains "Republic of China" doesn't reflect what most people think. The legacy name "Republic of China" reflects a political system in which the KMT's money, patronage system, and legacy bureaucratic control give it a huge advantage in legislative elections and it reflects pressure from nations like the United States that Taiwan relies on for purchasing defensive weapons. In fact, in latest poll numbers I can find, 2004, 6.3% of Taiwan's citizens consider themselves just Chinese. 45.4% consider themselves Chinese and Taiwanese. 45.7% consider themselves just Taiwanese. Taipei Times A Ministry of Foreign Affairs poll taken in 2001 "found 70% of people would support a name change to "Taiwan" if the island could no longer be referred to as the Republic of China." BBC Readin (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the spirits of your view above but I wish to also add that points of view of people are very fluid and they can change very drastically. Opinion polls change on a daily basis. So is the official position. The acceptance of the "1992 Consensus" means the ROC government has reclaimed itself as the government of the whole of China. The ROC government didn't beat the drums or make a big fuss about it, but that was what the act meant.
So is Taiwan now part of China? It is according to ROC law. It is according to PRC law. It is according to international law (except for some legal technicality over the treaties that gave rise to arguments that the soverignity wasn't properly transferred from Japan to China). It is according to the UN. It is according to official PRC position. Now, it is again the official position of the ROC. It is not, according to supporters of Taiwan independence but no one knows their exact number.
It is important to note in this case, we are not talking about moral issues such as "democratic" "great leader" or "wonderful guy" or scientific questions like pi. We are talking about countries and territories, which governments and laws are qualified and are inherently designed to define. Those examples you used aren't sound.
My hesitation for not calling Taiwan part of China is simple: China is not a clearly defined term. China is a common name for the PRC and calling Taiwan part of China = calling Taiwan part of the PRC.
The categorisation of "Chinese in Taiwan" and "Taiwanese in Taiwan" in your statement was unnecessary. Many people in Taiwan identify themselves as both Chinese and Taiwanese. Also, Chinese can support Taiwan independence and Taiwanese can support Chinesee reunification.--pyl (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Pyl always mentions "calling Taiwan part of China = calling Taiwan part of the PRC". I've already say I don't use it by itself. I use "Taiwan part of China (not be confused with PRC)" and "Taiwan part of China (but there's also ROC)" and now it a good sample to tell you the feeling of hearing "commonly known as Taiwan" by itself. --虞海 (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


So many "whys" and bald fonts. I personally find this a poor form of speech. It is rude and unnecessary.
I can't speak for readin or for the official position of the ROC. You are welcome to refer your enquiries to them directly. As far as I'm concerned (as just a Wikipedia editor following the established rules), Wikipedia points ROC's claims out without making an endorsement. That's neutral. Readers are entitled to know but they aren't supposed to be told whether it is right or wrong.
Have you considered the following possible interpretaion:-
  • China is a common name for the PRC; and
  • Taiwan is part of China = Taiwan is part of the PRC.
Therefore to be neutral, wikipedia shouldn't simply just say "Taiwan is part of China".--Pyl (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think China is a common name for the PRC because the Wikipedia article China does NOT redirect to PRC. However, if you think so, you can write: "Taiwan is part of China (not be confused with PRC)." to avoid Template:Weasel. So what you said is easy to solve. --虞海 (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I refer you to the 3rd paragraph of the "China" article which, for your convenience, I will reproduce here, as follows:-
"The last Chinese Civil War has resulted in two political entities using the name China: the People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China, which controls mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau; and the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, which controls the islands of Taiwan, Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu."
For the rest of your arguments, I repeat what I said on this subject previously, in particular, the possible interpretation that "Taiwan is part of China = Taiwan is part of the PRC".
A common name to aid readers is not a weasel word. I believe your interpretaion of the weasel word policy is incorrect. Please re-read the article.--Pyl (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, just as you said: common name Taiwan confuse people just like the "Taiwan is part of China = Taiwan is part of the PRC" confusion. As a consequence, I suggest use "Commonly known as Taiwan, but there's also Fujian (ROC)" and "Taiwan is part of China (not be confused with PRC)".
Write "Commonly known as Taiwan" is just like write "Taiwan is part of China". --虞海 (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It actually clarifies, instead of confuses people. When you walk down the streets outside Chinese speaking societies and ask people about "Taiwan", you are likely to get a very valid response. This wouldn't happen with "Republic of China". So here, we list the accurate name in the right place and footnotes it with "commonly known as Taiwan" so people can find the relevant information.
When you add "but there's also Fujian (ROC)" it just confuses people into thinking the "Taiwan" they think they know isn't the "Taiwan" wikipedia says it is. As you conceded earlier Taiwan is a common name for the ROC (including *both* provinces). So, by that logic, "Taiwan" (the common name) includes both places and there is no need to point it out again.--Pyl (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep drawing Fujian into this? There are several examples where one part of an entity has the same common name as the whole entity. Should all those include a statement that the entity includes also the other entities, except the one that has the same name? --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 07:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
My point exactly.--Pyl (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get the opinion Pyl said, but I understand what Jhattara means. Well, I think those examples should include a statement, in order not to confuse reader. For example, we use "Taiwan is part of China (not be confused with PRC)" or "Taiwan is part of China (but there's also ROC)". --虞海 (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be taking a position on the question of whether Taiwan is part of China as that is a subject of great dispute. Readin (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course we shouldn't be involved into that. But if you merely say "commonly known as Taiwan" you're involved into it. I mean: Or you place ROC here in regimes and do not merely say "commonly known as Taiwan", or you place Taiwan in "Dependencies, autonomies, other territories". "Taiwan is part of China" is a good example to solve the problem so it should be used here. --虞海 (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No one disputes that the ROC is a functioning self-governing political entity. No one disputes that it is commonly known as "Taiwan". However, the question of whether Taiwan is part of China is very much disputed. Many people will find your opinion that "Taiwan is part of China" every bit as objectionable as you would find the statement I believe is true that "Taiwan is not part of China" and in fact to the extent that China controlled Taiwan we should say "Taiwan was a colony of China". But of course I don't get to write what I want either because I have to respect the NPOV that says that no matter how nutso or evil a position is (like the nutso and evil imperialistic position that Taiwan should rightly be ruled by foreigners in Beijing who don't respect them simply because those foreigners practice a similar culture and have similar DNA and their ancestors conqured the island at one point in the past), that position has to be given equal treatment if a large number of supposedly serious people hold it. Well guess what, a lot of serious people, including at least one former President of Taiwan, hold the position that Taiwan is not part of China. No matter how nutso or evil you may think that position is, under NPOV you have to give it due respect. That's Wikipedia. Readin (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Here I agree with Readin. You got to respect the views of people who don't agree with you. That's the NPOV policy I kept talking about. "Taiwan is part of China" is highly disputed and we shouldn't put that in the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talkcontribs) 11:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan as an entity

      • Why do we talk Tibet here? I've made a independent section. --虞海 (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you guys bringing politics to this? It is not that complicated. If Taiwan were to be listed, it would not be listed as a common name, a state, or a province. Like Tibet, it would be listed as an independent entity.

If Hong Kong and Macau are listed because of their high levels of autonomy, then they should not be listed. This article serves as a navigational aid to connect Asian topics, it is not a list of autonomies. If there are a lot of topics about some unknown territory that is not a country, it should still be listed. That is the whole point of this navigational template.--Jerrch 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tibet isn't an independent entity. --Joowwww (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Tibet does not refer to the autonomous region controlled by China. For example, the History of Tibet is not the history of the TAR. In fact, a small proportion of Tibet is part of India. The same thing apply to Taiwan as well. And if we list Taiwan merely as a common name, it'd be confusing because the history of the ROC is not the same as the history of Taiwan.
Asia is not a region defined politically, that's why there are transcontinental countries. We should not list the articles politically either.--Jerrch 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion has already started about changing the Tibet links to Tibet Autonomous Region. I have already said that if you want to make a template based on geographical areas, then you go ahead, but {{Asia topic}}, just like {{Europe topic}}, {{North America topic}}, {{Africa topic}} and {{South America topic}}, will list political entities. Perhaps you would like to have this discussion with the other templates' talk pages too? --Joowwww (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Changing Tibet links to TAR would be unacceptable. Apart from what I've been saying about not listing entities politically, TAR does not have any sub-articles, which does not fulfill the purpose of this template.
I am talking about this template, and this template only. Why should I bring the discussion to the other templates? Asia is the biggest, and therefore the most complex continent. It also has a longer history than most other continents. My point is, the central discussion set for this template is right here, not anywhere else.--Jerrch 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean that this template should disputed region? Then place Sikkim here and then I will agree using Tibet . --虞海 (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there are several valid reasons for bringing the discussion to a place where the templates can be discussed as a group.
  • First, some level of consistency is useful between the templates. I don't think it should override NPOV or following what should be the purpose of this template - navigation - but consistency is useful.
  • The current layout is neutral and consistent. This result is as good as it gets.--pyl (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Second, if the other continent templates are also misusing the navbox style to make political statements about sovereignty and dependency, they should also be corrected.
  • Third, we've already had an exhaustive discussion here. A compromise was reached (though no one was truly satisfied, any compromise would have the same problem). Some of the editors are strident enough in their views that no further progress toward NPOV can be expected anytime soon. Some other editors, who I believe are acting on good faith, honestly believe that the template can and should be organized neutrally along political lines, consistent with other continental templates. They are strong enough in number and convinced enough of their correctness that we're not going to have any success persuading them otherwise. Which brings us to...
  • Fourth, you're likely to have more success bringing the matter to a crowd that is able to consider the issue without having strong biases on the Taiwan or Tibet question. In fact in doing so I would suggest not even mentioning the specific situation, but instead describe in general terms how the navbox is supposed to be for navigation and not for political definition, and ask if we should move away from trying to say which entities are sovereign, dependent, or whatever. Readin (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I sense a hint of allegation of bias here. I believe that is a big allegation to make and I would personally be more careful than the above when I give such hints, as such hints distract readers from the real purpose the above paragraph is trying to advocate.
  • People who protested at the Beijing Olympic Torch relays aren't necessarily "anti-China", and at the same time people who don't agree to list Taiwan or Tibet in a list of sovereign countries aren't necessarily "anti-Taiwan" or "anti-Tibet" either. These over-generalising labels are highly offensive and unnecessary.--pyl (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Jerrch, please stop repeating your arguments without addressing my replies to your arguments. I find this very frustrating. One of my replies already said "when 'Taiwan' is listed as well as the 'ROC (commonly known as Taiwan)', people think they are two different countries"
I accept this template doesn't have to be about political divisions, but when you click on the links of the template, the browser takes you to the relevant political divisions instead of the generic geographic pages, then this template is implicitly telling you that it is about political divisions. I don't believe the concept of implicit representation should be overlooked here. This argument was made above but again no reply was given, so it is repeated here. Here I agree with Joowwww. If you want one that's all about the generic geographical locations, it is a good idea to make another template.
Otherwise, I can suggest a compromise: adding another section to this template entitled (to the effect of) "General geographic locations" and putting all those places there.--pyl (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe my arguments are more relevant to this template than yours. I am not asking for you to put Taiwan under sovereign states, but territories. So there should be no confusion at all.--Jerrch 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I seriously think that would cause more trouble than it's worth. I still feel that a separate template listing geographic areas would be more beneficial to their requests. It would keep the inevitable endless discussions about what constitutes a geographic area out of this template.
The world is split into political territories, and is administered as such, therefore political entities should take precedent. Like it or lump it, that's how the world is, and the template should reflect the current situation of how the world is run. --Joowwww (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember we have a consensus that it's a

. Tibet is a geographic area and Tibet Autonomous Region is an Autonomous Region.

I think redirect the article Tibet to Tibet Autonomous Region is unacceptable, but change "Tibet" to "Tibet Autonomous Region|Tibet" in this template is not only acceptable, but also necessary. The best way is when without perfix, use "Tibet Autonomous Area|Tibet", and when with perfix, use "Tibet". But there's a technic problem so I suggest using "Tibet Autonomous Area|Tibet". --虞海 (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


Should't Taiwan be in italics, as it is not fully recognised by most states? --JensMueller (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The PRC is also not recognised by some states. This was discussed before but it opened up a whole ugly can of worms. --Joowwww (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)