Template talk:Politics of the Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Taiwan (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

ROC v Taiwan[edit]

As far as I can see an agreement was not yet reached on using ROC in stead of Taiwan Gangulf 09:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In light of the recent page moves, I'd like to clarify that an agreement does in fact exist in the form of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Following those conventions, the political entity should be referred to as the ROC. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Was anyone here aware Instantnood is running another poll to move "XXX of Taiwan" to "XXX of the Republic of China" at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC? The poll "started" a week ago, but since no pages link to the polling page, I thought maybe it was a little onesided and needed some publicity... SchmuckyTheCat 21:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please kindly check Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC (except those added by SchmuckyTheCat just now), for what pages are linked to it. Thank you.
Please also note that the polls there are enforcement of the naming conventions. — Instantnood 21:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


I first suggested to proceed to have a poll as a solution on March 10 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/archive4#Solution, and there was no objection. More than two weeks later on March 26 I suggested to have polls on a case-by-case basis (at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#Solution). A link was added at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#Solution to direct readers to the polling page on March 31, at the time when the polling page was created.

SchmuckyTheCat is wrong for accusing me for starting the polls with no page linked to it, that it might resulted in onesided and lack of publicity. Please note this is an accusation, though I am pretty sure opinion wouldn't be affected easily. — Instantnood 06:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Three principles[edit]

The obsolete Three principles is no longer important in ROC politics. Leaving it on the template seems to be anachronistic. Can we remove it?--Mababa 01:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Did Lien Chan mention it in his speech at Peking University? — Instantnood 02:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the layout[edit]

I changed the layout of the template. For more information on this layout and on the series of boxes, see the text below. Electionworld 12:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


This page is semiprotected due to persistant reverts disregarding previous consensus. To the anon in question, the use of "Taiwan" in parenthesis when introducing the ROC has been an accepted compromise used on ROC related articles including this one until now. You are requested to discuss this issue with other involved editors either on this talk page or on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) before making any more changes. -Loren 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Loren, this is a completely out of bounds statement. 1) you are not an admin 2) this page was never protected 3) use of the template to mark this article as semiprotected when it isnt is a WP:POINT and should end with you being blocked. You are not supposed to use Semi-protection as a threat during an edit conflict. Do this again and I will be forced to block you.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 01:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Responded. I suggest you reevaluate those statements. -Loren 01:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(Yet another) Revert War[edit]

In light of the recent edit war regarding the title header of this template, I have temporarily protected the template from further editing. To all parties involved, please discuss any proposed changes to the naming conventions here, or on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). This continuous reversion is becoming disruptive, especially seeing as the back and forth reversions for the last month or so has mostly centered over the use of "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Under the current naming conventions one could probably come up with a plausible argument for either usage. Perhaps we should take advantage of the current dispute to come to a consensus on what the proper usage should be for article templates such as this one. -Loren (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Qwegwewe doesn't use talk pages. He moves from article to article moving text around to fit a certain POV and is generally reverted on sight by someone. The existing consensus has been that putting (Taiwan) after the first occurrence of Republic of China in an article is a reader-friendly thing to do, as RoC is not a well known name. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Requested move[edit]

Hi. Suggest this template is renamed "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" in order to:

  • include the ROC's more well-known moniker;
  • disambiguate from the pre-1949 Republic of China.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay This isn't about the 1949-present ROC, it's just about the ROC. Hence there are Sun Yat-Sen-related links like Three Principles of the People and Five Races Under One Union. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with above: Undesired specificity. ROC is not synonymous with Taiwan, and the ROC government has not been confined to Taiwan for its entire existence. Chaparral2J (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Understood; thanks for pointing out. Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, current title is shorter and still descriptive, readers don't see template names anyway. Kusma (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Currently, this template is in Category:Republic of China templates. However, that category is now a redirect (rightly or wrongly) to Category:Republic of China (Taiwan) templates. One or the other should be corrected. --Russ (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Done. The later category (the "Taiwan" one) already has several templates, only this one was not there, so I changed it's category - Nabla (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
    • As the previous lock didn't seem to be successful in encouraging discussion, I'm lowering the protection level for this template, with the understanding that any future disputes on the subject of the naming issue be discussed first. -Loren (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia is a foreign country?[edit]

The Constitution of the ROC claims Mongolia as part of the ROC. This claim remains unchanged.

During the DDP years, the administrative branch of the government had decided not to pursue this claim and it tried to normalise the relationship between the ROC and Mongolia. However, an administrative branch of the government is not empowered to change the Constitution. The legal position is, Mongolia is part of the ROC.

I find it unprofessional that I received a comment saying "this is ridiculous" when I asked for citation that the ROC no longer claims Mongolia and I explained at the same time that the Constitution is unchanged (that Mongolia is still claimed by the ROC). I believe it is Wikipedia's policy that proper citation needs to be provided if a POV is asserted. I provided the Constitution.

Given the ROC constitutional position, it would be contrary to the NPOV policy to actively assert that "Mongolia is a foreign country" in the template and that's why I believe it is approporiate to remove it so the template does not make any representation on this issue.--pyl (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Right As you point out, the DPP has not pursued claims to Mongolia, as they don't want to get blown up; they also stopped trying to "take back the Mainland" a long time ago, so ROC-PRC relations are essentially foreign relations. Even moreso for Mongolia, as stated in that article. Regardless of the de jure position, the de facto position is that Mongolia is treated as a foreign state. For that matter, there are several ROC relations pages with states between whom there are not relations (e.g. the United States.) Again, in spite of any legal definitions, the ROC and US treat one another as states that carry on normalized foreign relations. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 10:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is talking about "getting blown up" or "taking back the Mainland". This is not what the template is about. I am happy that you have your own political views, but it doesn't mean that being civil and professional to your fellow Wikipedia editor is no longer essential.
The issue here is: to actively assert that Mongolia is a foreign country is contrary to the ROC's constitutional position. I understand there is a POV that Mongolia is a foreign country to the ROC. Therefore, in order to be neutral, I don't think that Wikipedia should then endorse any particular view. The Mongolia article states what I said all along: Mongolia is claimed by the ROC constitution but in practice the relations are becoming normalised. Placing "Mongolia relations" under "other issues" instead of "foreign relations" or "domestic issues" is the right thing to do.
Also, ROC-PRC relations are not foreign relations. That's the consensus between the KMT and the DPP governments. The DPP didn't shift this portfolio from the Mainland Affairs Council to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Again, I understand there is a POV that this relationship is a foreign one in nature so I just moved it out of foreign relations and gave it a separate row in the table instead of giving it a "domestic relations" heading.
To the ROC, the US is a foreign country so it falls into foreign relations. I don't think there is any issues with that. If the US has a different perspective, I think the US should demonstrate its view in the US table.--pyl (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that most (if not nearly all) countries in the world do treat Mongolia as a sovereign state, e.g. they have established an embassy and/or consulates there, just as they have in the PRC and some still retain (officially or unofficially) with the Taiwan-based ROC. The opening to Wikipedia's article on Mongolia states that it "...is a landlocked country", while the infobox there indicates that it is parliamentary republic. Is that incorrect? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we need (Taiwan) for this template?[edit]

The existing consensus has been that putting (Taiwan) after the first occurrence of Republic of China in an article is a reader-friendly thing to do, as RoC is not a well known name. But since this is a template, "ROC" would never appear as the first instance of the article, as templates always sit at the bottom of the page. Also, in some contexts, the "(Taiwan)" remark is quite inappropriate as this template may be used for situations that occurred before the 1970s when the ROC was commonly known as China.

So I will now remove this remark from the template. If this is not appropraite, please let me know.--pyl (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  • My understanding is that:
    • from 1912/1913, "China" was the Republic of China;
    • from 1949, mainland China ("China") has been the People's Republic of China, while the Republic of China has been confined to Taiwan (and a few other islands/places). It has become known, unofficially, colloquially, as "Taiwan", but, for the sake of accuracy and distinction from the 1912-1949 Republic of China, is identified as Republic of China (Taiwan) (or, possibly, "Taiwan (Republic of China)", although that doesn't seem to be preferred). Hence, I suppose this template should be renamed "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)"... Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The Republic of China article states that "During the 1950s and 1960s, it was common to refer to the Republic of China as Nationalist China or Free China. Over subsequent decades, the Republic of China has been commonly referred to as "Taiwan". Since the late 1970s the name "China" is commonly used to refer to the People's Republic of China."
  • I don't think there is any consensus to make a distinction between the ROC before and after 1949. Some people proposed this in the China article but there were no consensus. This is also demonstrated in the "Republic of China" article, as no distinctions are made.
  • The templates are used for all purposes, including for the ROC before 1949. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, I don't think we should remark this template with (Taiwan).
  • Also as I said above, the template always sits at the bottom of the page, so I don't think there is a need to do "(Taiwan)" for reader-friendliness. The article would have done that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talkcontribs) 11:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a pity if there's no consensus to distinguish the Republic of China before and after 1948/1949, as I'd say that's pretty fundamental, regardless of POV. In any case, this template doesn't seem to be organized with the Republic of China since 1912 in mind, but the Republic of China since 1948/1949. Hence it seems to me more like a "Template:Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" or possibly "Template:Politics of the Republic of China since 1948" regardless of whatever title sits at the top of the template. So, perhaps the template should be renamed (otherwise extended back to 1912) but not retitled..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That's why I didn't think there's any need to do "(Taiwan)". We can't make any distinctions now since there is no consensus. If we do a "Template:Politics of the Republic of China on Taiwan" (as opposed to Republic of China on mainland China) there will be edit wars, as usual.
  • The existing consensus has been that putting (Taiwan) after the first occurrence of Republic of China in an article is a reader-friendly thing to do, as RoC is not a well known name. But since this is a template, "ROC" would never appear as the first instance of the article, as templates always sit at the bottom of the page. So I think we should just leave it.--pyl (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, but I'm suggesting the template's name becomes "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)", not its title (i.e. not what's displayed). Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh I see. Sorry that I didn't get what you meant before. I don't have a problem with that but I am worried about the potential edit wars arising from the conflicting names (article title and template).--pyl (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The existing concensus is to use "Republic of China (Taiwan)" at the beginning and again later as needed, but recommended no more than once per section. We do not know where the template will be used, so we can't always be sure that the distinction was clear in the article. Putting "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is in full compliance with the consensus on the frequency of use.
The other argument is that the template might be used in situations where it doesn't make sense - for example articles talking exclusively about pre-1949 or even pre-1945 ROC. That's a discussion we should have. Readin (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Two arguments really.
But even with the first argument, I still think there is essentially no possibility that the template would be the first instance when the ROC is mentioned. If it is, really, the article hasn't done its job. So I don't think it falls into the "as needed" category.
And yes the 2nd argument is still my concern as well.--pyl (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Shall I try renaming (but not retitling) the template "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)", as above? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I don't object to it, I don't think you need to bother. As I said, the inconsistencies are more likely to attract a edit war than just leaving it as is.--pyl (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll leave it be. (If, sometime much later, I pass by this template again and have forgotten about the above, I may try renaming it and any subsequent reverting will probably remind me.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2014[edit]

As this template isn't a sidebar, please remove the "Politics by country sidebar templates" category at the end of the template code. Thanks. (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Lugia2453 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirect of Template:Politics of Republic of China to Template:Politics of Taiwan[edit]

@Lemongirl942: Since 2006 there has been two different templates covering the politics of Taiwan/ROC, Template:Politics of the Republic of China and Template:Politics of Taiwan. This redirect seems to have been made in order to merge the two templates and making the "Taiwan" version the working template. Two minutes after the redirect was created by User:Wrestlingring, the target template was edited by IP_135.23.144.167 (who is the same editor), and to me it looks as if the "Taiwan" version now contains all the relevant material from the "ROC" version. The redirect seems to work, so we have got rid of a unnecessary content fork. Having two almost identical templates for the same country is obviously not needed. Regards! --T*U (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I am aware that there was a merge, but this is a potentially controversial merge, considering that this template has existed since a longer time than the other one. In fact, I see that the other template was converted from a redirect in 2015 (as a cfork?). Personally I think we should be precise. If there is a political entity called ROC, we need to keep it as it is. I would rather merge the other template into this one if at all. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Lemongirl942: My main concern is not whether the resulting template is the one or the other, but the fact that we have two templates covering the same theme. For the moment they have, as far as I can see, identical content, but what happens when someone edits one, others edit the other? Then we will have the same situation as before the merge. I can see no argument for keeping two templates. I will give you two arguments for the Taiwan version: 1) Since the RoC version was created, the country main page has been moved from RoC to Taiwan (in 2012). 2) The Taiwan version conforms better with the style of other "Politics of" templates. But imho the main thing is to get rid of the fork. --T*U (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the "What came first", it is true that the Taiwan sidebar was created in March 2015 from a redirect. But at that time the RoC template was not a sidebar, but a navbox for placing at the bottom of articles. Then in August 2015 the RoC template was changed to a sidebar, so that was when the cfork was created. So in reality the Taiwan sidebar was first. --T*U (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)