Talk:Taiwan/Archive 25

Because the infobox says Taiwanese, could the demonym also include Chinese as well? The reason why it should be added because under the One China principle, both the Mainland/PRC and Taiwan/ROC are "one united China". 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:C158:98C2:1732:48EE (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Even from the point of view that Taiwan is a part of one united China, Chinese still isn't an appropriate demonym for Taiwan, as it's far too broad. They'd be Taiwanese like Hong Kong people are Hong Kongers and those from Shanghai are Shanghainese. CMD (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

See also the discussion at Archive 23 from May 2015. People from Taiwan are "Taiwanese"; it is incorrect to list "Chinese" as a demonym because "Chinese" refers to a much larger group than just "people of Taiwan." Phlar (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

People from mainland China also call people from Taiwan "Taiwan people". Does that mean they have recognized Taiwan as a country? No, they call people from everywhere by their regions of origin. This has nothing to do with political views. Of course, people from the island of Taiwan are called Taiwanese, but are people from Mazu Taiwanese, just because you named the article "Taiwan", preferring common usage and ignoring the constitution? --178.10.55.209 (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Multiple IP addresses

Okay we generally ask IPs which take part in such discussions to stick to one stable IP to put the edits on the same level as other users who create accounts. In this case looks like the IP has canvassed legitimately participating editor Matt Smith twice from two different addresses https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:C158:98C2:1732:48EE . Could the IP please declare what other addresses he/she has used? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The proposal to update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) to handle the China/Taiwan matter is under discussion. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear all. I invite you to join the discussion on renaming districts of Kaohsiung. @George Ho:. Szqecs (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear all. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Again??? Didn't we just do this? China and Taiwan are what we use by consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): This discussion is not just about this article but also other related ones such as Flag of the Republic of China.

As for this one, as you know, there are move proposals all the time, therefore it isn't universal consensus. Users are always allowed to propose moves, sure, but the discussion need not go too far every time. Having a special Naming Conventions is better than using the commonly used, more general WP:COMMONNAME. A new discussion from scratch may not be needed, but the rationale for and against need to be compiled for fast reference. Also, some people believe that the general WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to this special case. There could be an exception if it is agreed upon, but with the current mode of the discussions, it doesn't seem possible. Szqecs (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's needed to change "Flag of the Republic of China" to "Flag of Taiwan" but it does make some sense. But that's pretty much all the sort of thing this should entail since there is no chance of a snowball in Hades that the article names are going to change from Taiwan or from China. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You are not sure because it hasn't been discussed thoroughly. Even if the current articles never change, there could always be new articles like new government agencies, whose article name would need to be decided. There doesn't need to be a lengthy discussion every time. Szqecs (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The names of the two articles have been discussed a lot... so I'm sure about that aspect. New articles and their titles I'm not sure of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In this picture above, this map should be re-added since the green represents the Free area of the Republic of China and light green as historical or current claims. To User:Matt Smith will this more be appropriate since the ROC still claims the mainland but no actual control? 24.212.149.50 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Since File:People's Republic of China (orthographic projection).svg also shows the portions which the PRC claims but isn't controlling, I think it is okay to use the image you are referring to for the ROC. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Where in the article do you propose to add this map? I think it would only be appropriate in a section describing the territory claimed by, but not under the control of, the ROC. Without detailed explanation, it would confuse or mislead many readers. Phlar (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not opposed to adding the map, but it should be clearly mentioned that these are historical claims. Can someone find a citation though? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the ROC govt has never officially made or published any territorial claims for the mainland since 2005. In the 2005 ROC Yearbook (in Chinese) they described the mainland as part of its territory for the last time. Guess it’s almost impossible to find any recent source to support any active territorial claims. And in 2012, they explicitly dropped the claim for Mongolia and recognized its independence (in Chinese). The matter is roughly described in the article History of the administrative divisions of China (1912–49).--Tomchen1989 (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not correct. Art. 1 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China ([5]) states that “The electors of the free area of the Republic of China shall cast ballots at a referendum within three months of the expiration of a six-month period following the public announcement of a proposal passed by the Legislative Yuan on the amendment of the Constitution or alteration of the national territory. The provisions of Article 4 and Article 174 of the Constitution shall not apply.” As such a referendum has never taken place, it is clear that the Republic of China claims the entire territory of China. This is also evident out of the fact that the ROC does not recognize the PRC as a state. Obviously, given the current circumstances, the ROC is not in the position to enforce its claims. But I think a map showing Mainland China as claimed territory would make the situation much clearer. After all, this article, though it is called "Taiwan", is in fact about the (post-1949) Republic of China and not about Taiwan Province or about the Free area of the Republic of China. De wafelenbak (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not clearer. In that map, the territorial claim (which is now completely theoretical) overshadows and obscures the actual territory controlled by the state. It is sufficient to discuss the territorial claim in the body of the article. Kanguole 13:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This talk page seems to have Wikipedia's focus for how we represent the (non-trivial) status of Taiwan, so I am posting here.

On one hand, the opening statement of this article describes Taiwan as a state and uses consistent with that the {{infobox country}}.

However, Portal:Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and its redirect Portal:Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) calls it a region.

Further, some Taiwan categories are subordinate to China, e.g. Category:Nuclear power stations in Taiwan and Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Taiwan,but others such as Category:Republic of China Army are not. One month ago Beagel asked for guidance with respect to the categories [here], but no one has commented.

As such I find Wikipedia's description of the status of Taiwan to be inconsistent, and I think

1) the article and the portal on Taiwan should afford it the same status,

2) if that status is a state then its categories should not be subordinate to China, otherwise they should.

I would appreciate if anyone here can contribute to clearing up how these two points can be implemented (or else argue against them). Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RE your two points:
1) Agree. And implementation should be easy enough after consensus has been achieved.
2) Disagree. The purpose of categorization is to enable users to "browse and quickly find sets of pages on [defined] topics." Ease-of-use and NPOV should trump ideology. Categories are different than articles in that they cannot accommodate explanatory notes, sources, etc. so they are generally meant to be uncontroversial (see Categorization#Articles). Non-controversial parent categories should be chosen on a case-by-case basis. For example, making Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Taiwan subordinate to China is controversial because some feel that Taiwan is not part of China, but making it subordinate to Asia, for example, should be OK because Taiwan is unquestionably part of Asia.
Phlar (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I have restored 'country' to the Portal introduction. It was changed without explanation ten months ago, and while there are often disputes over how to classify Taiwan, by no stretch of the imagination is it a region. The other point about its relationship to China is a far more complex and contentious issue, not something that can really be resolved here as it affects far too many other articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan is technically an island (self governing), though the term Taiwan is also used for the Free area of the Republic of China (or the Taiwan area).From this, Strictly speaking, the terms “Formosa”, “Taiwan”, and “Republic of China” are not synonymous. “The Republic of China” is the English name of a sovereign state, which is recognized by more than twenty members of the United Nations, though not by Japan. Taiwan is a province of China, which is recognized as such by both of the governments which lay claim to it, namely, the ROC and the PRC (People's Republic of China). The territory of Taiwan consists entirely of islands, of which the largest is Formosa, which name was given it by sixteenth century Portuguese explorers, and which has been used in English-language writing thereafter. In addition to Formosa, the province comprises the Pescadores or Penghu Islands 澎湖群島 to the west of Formosa, Orchid Island 蘭嶼 and Green Island 緑島 to the east of Formosa, and a number of smaller islands. In English-language writing and speech, both Chinese governments use the name "Taiwan" ambiguously, referring either to the province 台湾省 or to its primary island, Formosa 美麗島. Another difficulty is that "China" and "Taiwan" are often used to distinguish, respectively, PRC-controlled territory from ROC-controlled territory; however, this too is misleading usage, for the territory controlled by the ROC is actually greater than the extent of the province of Taiwan. In addition to Taiwan, the ROC controls island groups near the Chinese mainland which are traditionally part of mainland provinces. The use of “Taiwan” to mean Formosa, as well as the de facto ROC control of areas beyond Formosa and the Pescadores, is reflected in the ROC’s official name as a member of the APEC, which is “the Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu”. This is no clear cut description of what Taiwan is. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Phlar: Thanks for your comments. I agree with your statement that 'Non-controversial parent categories should be chosen on a case-by-case basis'. I am a bit unsure to what extent you actually disagree with my point 2). The two category examples I gave, Category:Nuclear power stations in Taiwan and Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Taiwan, are currently subordinate to China, and I agree with you that this cannot be called non-controversial. For guidance, I would appreciate an example of a Taiwanese category that could non-controversially be subordinate to China. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lklundin: Sorry, I could've explained my "disagreement" more clearly. I took your point #2 literally, i.e. that the subordination or non-subordination of "Taiwan" categories to "China" categories should depend on the status afforded to Taiwan in the Taiwan article and portal. I disagree with this principle, because the status will continue to be controversial for the foreseeable future, but categories should not be controversial for the reasons I cited above. Therefore, I feel that the decision about whether or not to subordinate a "Taiwan" category to a "China" category should be made independently of the "status of Taiwan" question. For example, I think that making Cat:Taiwanese politicians subordinate to Cat:Chinese politicians would be controversial, but subordinating Cat:Taiwanese opera to Cat:Chinese opera is not controversial. Phlar (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Phlar: OK, many thanks for the clarification. Per this principle, I would say that Category:Nuclear power stations in Taiwan and Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Taiwan (especially the nuclear one), should not be subordinate to their Chinese equivalents. Unless someone within some days makes a convincing counterargument, I will then fix that. If someone feels convinced it should be fixed sooner, then just WP:Be bold. Lklundin (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

China = PRC, Taiwan = ROC (not geographically but per political entities when used colloquially in speech, inference is unequivocally understood by all). Easy to conclude on suitability for categorization. Nuclear power station clearly should not be under China. The ONLY time it would be suitable is when Taiwan comes under effective rule of PRC (like Hong Kong and Macau). Until then, any opposition is politically motivated trolling. Wikipedia should reflect fact and reality not pander to sensitivities. Czgsq (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is constructive to be so entirely dismissive of any yet to be made arguments. We can certainly not rule out that the two China's can have some areas of overlap (maybe linguistic, cultural, genetic), and since Taiwan is the younger of the two countries, it is conceivable that some Taiwan-categories can be non-controversially subordinate to those of China. I think Phlar has provided a good example in support of that. Lklundin (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better for government pages to be People's Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan) as per each governments own wording but references to each entity will be China and Taiwan respectively. I think this would be the least controversial. Czgsq (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC) I take that back, I had a look at North Korea and South Korea, so it should be fine to use China and Taiwan. PRC and ROC does confuse people, yet Taiwan raises problem over its legal status and constitution. ROC government is stuck in the year 1912 and continues to claim territory lost 68-106 years ago (ROC map). Yet they can't update their constitution to reflect reality as it would trigger an invasion from the PRC. There are articles that sufficiently cover the ROC government's history 1911-1949 and post-1949. English Wikipedia should reflect the usage in the Anglosphere. Does anyone still hear PRC and ROC being used as of 2017? Mostly just China and Taiwan when referring to the two entities/countries. Czgsq (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kanguole:I perceive that note is important enough to be put on the first paragraph. Hope you could understand. Thank you! =) --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 10:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The note in question was:

Taiwan, a commonly-known name for the ROC, is gaining popularity to be formally used to stand for Republic of China as it's short and clear and Chinese Communist Party hasn't recognized the presence of ROC, saying word "China" refers to People's Republic of China, aka PRC

This is both unnecessary clutter, as the issue is discussed in a more encyclopedic style lower down, and advances a contentious claim, which should not be done in the opening paragraph. It is far better to discuss the issue properly in article text. Kanguole 10:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that it uses very poor grammar. --Khajidha (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Change GDP total from "$1.147 trillion" to "$1,147 trillion" Bosung90 (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Again, not done: as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Decimals — IVORK _Discuss 09:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

GDP data are made in 2014,Why not use World Economic Outlook Database, April 2017,IMF??These data are old and should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.142.115.27 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done: it's a bit tricky, since they don't include Taiwan in their countries list. Kanguole 11:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Splitting the article Politics of the Republic of China is proposed at Talk:Politics of the Republic of China#RfC, where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roc-taiwan.org/ct.asp?xItem=456&CtNode=2243&mp=1&xp1=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140329071215/http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/month/m1-01.xls to http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/month/m1-01.xls
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/GSHAP/eastasia/asiafin.gif
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.straitstimes.com/print/Breaking%2BNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_347888.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2005%2F03%2F14%2Finternational%2Fi003051S91.DTL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120514012002/http://info.gio.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=19878&ctNode=2840&mp=21 to http://info.gio.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=19878&ctNode=2840&mp=21
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhi.gov.tw/english/webdata.asp?menu=11&menu_id=295&webdata_id=1865
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhi.gov.tw/english/file/s92.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/11/08/idUS82890%2B08-Nov-2008%2BBW20081108
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.taiwan.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=999
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101001175559/http://www.exam.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=5 to http://www.exam.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The major threat to the ROC is of course invasion from the Communist-controlled mainland. That could be simply stated. It is not the same as "constant threat of invasion by the PRC under the Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China". It is not a threat of invasion by or under legislation, but military force.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is that that military force would be acting under the guidelines of that legislation. China has enacted this law as a standing notice that they will invade if they feel it necessary. This is an important point. This isn't some vague idea that Taiwan could be invaded at any time, this is like following someone around while constantly pointing a gun at their head. --Khajidha (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The move request is made at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of China#Requested move 24 May 2017, which is ongoing. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Over at Same-sex marriage in Taiwan, an anon user has gone through the article replacing references to Taiwan as a "country" with the word "province". As I'm sure you guys have debated this one to death, could someone clarify what the most accurate/consensus terminology would be in this case? I considered "island" as more neutral, but it doesn't work in the sentence "would become the first island in Asia to legalise...", among others. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Just restore the previous wording (I've done that), warn the user, and block them if they persist. --Khajidha (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Jdcooper (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that ROC may not be confined to Taiwan island when we talk about neighbors of ROC, islands like the Taiping Islands may be considerate so that the S.R.Vietnam and the R.O.Korea should also be regard as neighed states. Please check out the Wikipedia item of the Chinese version.When we talk about ROC and　PRC, Mainland China　may not be less offensive, since considerable Taiwanese regard themselves as Chinese at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkbreaker (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That would not be reasonable enough if you take Diaoyutai islands for example, anyway I agree that it is more suitable to express it this way. -Proletdictus 17:13, 10 June 2017(UTC) Proletdictus (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The country has sea borders with Japan to the northeast and the Philippines to the south, so they are neighbours. Vietnam and South Korea aren't, whether you include the disputed islands or not. The English Wikipedia is not bound by the Chinese one (or vice versa).

We've had many discussions on what to call the PRC, and there is general agreement to use the common name (China) unless special circumstances apply. Kanguole 17:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

But the sea borders given by the website of the Presidency of the ROC are confined to the border of Taiwan island, and if we refer to the eleven-dotted line that the ROC government formerly claims, the ROC should have common border with the R.O.Vietnam and then the S.R.Vietnam. Wkbreaker 18:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That claim is not recognised by anyone else, not even taken seriously by the Taiwanese govt., otherwise they would be enforcing it. More generally many countries have overseas territories and outposts, like Taiping, which are not geographically within that country. E.g. the UK has the Falkland Islands. But you would not say the UK is neighbours with Argentina because of this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually Former President Ma had restated the claim of the 11-dotted line everytime other states try to change the status quo. Though this border may by Only admitted by PRC or ROC. And it is under Gaoxiong City,like the Okinawa of Japan, rather than regard as a overseas island.So if you say Vietnam was not a neighbor,Japan neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proletdictus (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Compare "Ireland" Vs. the "Republic of Ireland", the Republic of Ireland article exist separately from the Ireland article despite "Ireland" being the WP:COMMONNAME for the country, I'm not suggesting changing other articles with "Taiwan" or "Taiwanese" in the name to "Republic of China", but this article clearly denotes a political state and the Republic of China is a sovereign state, before there used to be a "China" article explaining the situation, and for the same reason that "Korea" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the Republic of Korea doesn't mean that we would have to change it. In fact the current title gives WP:UNDUE weight to both Taiwanese independence, and the One-China policy and for this same reason we refrain from calling the Republic of Ireland simply "Ireland", or the Republic of Korea simply as "Korea" both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China are sovereign states called "China" no matter how often the media repeats that the ROC is called "Taiwan" doesn't make it true. The Tylenol page also directs users to the uncommonly used name (in the English-speaking world) "paracetamol" or qn obscure band, for some reason WP:COMMONNAME is never applied to any other political entity other than here.--42.112.158.223 (talk)

And yes, I'm quoting the Republic of Ireland article because it would be "controversial" to simply move it to "Ireland", and Taiwan has had a separate history from the Republic of China government that the article Geography of Taiwan could better cover as it too would be moved, but simply to Taiwan.

--42.112.158.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Taiwan is not a de jure state. It's an island, and a province. The ROC is a state, founded in 1912, and an article about that state belongs under Republic of China. As is, there's the unnatural Republic_of_China_(1912–49) article that, bizarrely, implies the ROC is defunct... and then this one, which implies ROC is the same thing as Taiwan. This is pretty nonsensical. Kiralexis (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"Ireland" and "Korea" are ambiguous terms, "Taiwan" is not. Szqecs (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Dont think the title of articles should be based on the opinions of amateurs. Clarification in the article, certainly. Whats more, Taiwan is at least as ambiguous as Ireland and Korea combined. 114.248.199.120 (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan is nowhere near as ambiguous. LordAtlas (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Fact 1: RoC (Republic of China) rules parts of Fujian Province as well (and of course entirety of Taiwan province), so this current article equating Taiwan province to RoC is pretty ridiculous. What about Penghu and Jinmen? these counties are also ruled by RoC and they are part of Fujian province.

Fact 2: Taiwan province actually has a provincial governor, which is a different and separate political position vs President of RoC. President of RoC has much more power than the Taiwan governor. If Taiwan = RoC, how would this work? - Ranmin (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Perhaps you are looking for this article: Taiwan Province? --Khajidha (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That's my point, there's no sovereign state known as Taiwan now or historically, exactly zero country has ever recognized a country known as Taiwan. There's only Taiwan the province, and China the country. There's two legitimate governments ruling different parts of China. RoC rules Taiwan province and parts of Fujian province, PRoC rules the rest of Chinese territory. So whenever you refer to "Taiwan", you would be referring to a Chinese province known as Taiwan. So this "Taiwan" article is confusing, since there's no country known as Taiwan. - Ranmin (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. When English-speakers talk about Taiwan, they almost only mean RoC and NOT the island. That's how it is. You are confused because you don't believe this country exists. That's your problem. LordAtlas (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think any language speaker can understand Taiwan refers to RoC, but the name of the article should be RoC, since there's no country known officially as Taiwan. It's the English wikipedia that is confused. The Chinese Wikipedia correctly uses RoC as the name of the article, you can click on the "中文" link to the left and see for yourself. - Ranmin (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, most of us view Taiwan as separate from China and not a province of it. LordAtlas (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you in denial? Taiwan is ruled by a government called Republic of China, it's in the god damn official name - Ranmin (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

English-speakers say "Taiwan" to refer to this country. Take your nationalism elsewhere. Notice how RoC and PRC are not the same? LordAtlas (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Which is evidence that the Taiwan government is in denial, not English speakers. --Khajidha (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no rule that we should use official names. Szqecs (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's highly controversial to assert that Taiwan (island) is part of China. So please avoid making the said assertion. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

At "Political and legal status" there's a timeline of history, change "China" to "Mainland China" as it implies that the Republic of China isn't "China". Further "Mainland China" would be less ambiguous. 1.55.183.244 (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Republic of China ISN'T China anymore. --Khajidha (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Mainland China is a term little used or recognised outside of the China/Greater China reason. "China" is the common name, constrasts well with "Taiwan", and is perfectly clear and unambiguous.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Why was it closed so suddenly? Anyhow Wikipedia:COMMONNAME does not apply to misnomers, see Talk:Duchy of Warsaw#Move to Grand Duchy of Warsaw. --Codename Alex (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The argument that a name change would confuse users is flawed, changing it to "Taiwan (Republic of China)" wouldn't confuse anyone in fact it might even clear up why the nation is called "Chinese Daibei" in sports, and redirects exists solely to avoid such a confusion, someone looking for the Republic of Chine will be brought here, right? --Codename Alex (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC) (Just call me "Code")

The confusion is created by linking Taiwan and ROC in the title. It's a lot easier to just explain different names of it in the article body. There was also a long debate on the subject some years ago, which I still remember. Best to leave it. John Smith's (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Your comparison to the Duchy of Warsaw is flawed. Common names and formal names do not have to match (see Greece/Hellenic Republic), so "Taiwan" is not a misnomer. If this page were titled "Kingdom of China", THAT would be a misnomer of the type you are referring to over at Duchy of Warsaw. --Khajidha (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Look up the source for Taiwan's Ethnic Group in the wikipedia page. It is called "Republic of China Yearbook 2014" and it specifically uses the term "Han Chinese". Stop changing that. Han Chinese is the correct term. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if the link goes to the Han Chinese or the Han Taiwanese page, but I see no reason that the word "Chinese" or "Taiwanese" needs to appear in the Ethnic Groups section of the infobox. Before your most recent edit the link went to the Han Chinese page, even though the link was piped so that it would display as Han. Thus, you did not change the destination of the link, you only changed how it was displayed. Before reverting my edit again, please explain why you feel that the word "Chinese" needs to be displayed after "Han" in this link. Phlar (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

BECAUSE IT SAYS "HAN CHINESE" IN THE SOURCE! LOOK UP THE SOURCE THAT IS USED FOR THE CITATION 5 (THE CITATION FOR TAWIAN'S ETHNIC COMPOSITION! THERE IS A PDF OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA YEARBOOK 2014 WITH ALL OF THE PAGES. ON PAGE 36, IN THE ETHNICITY CATEGORY, "HAN CHINESE" IS USED! IF YOU THINK I AM LYING WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THE TIME TO CLICK THE LINK AND LOOK UP PAGE 36 IN THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA YEARBOOK 2014? I WILL EVEN PUT THE LINK HERE MYSELF! http://www.ey.gov.tw/Upload/UserFiles/YB%202014%20all%20100dpi.pdf GO TO PAGE 36 ON IT! --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This has nothing to do with the term. This has to do with neutrality, general consistency, more importantly the Manual of Style. Alex Shih^Talk 02:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"Han Chinese" is neutral, the term isn't implying that you're not one or the other, a Han Chinese person living in Italy without any Taiwanese passport is still considered "a Han Chinese person", it's an ethnicity, and "Han Taiwanese" is a specific subgroup, not unlike "Hoa people" or "Chinese Filipino" ("Tsinoy") who are also still "Han Chinese". Omitting information 🛈 from a source because it serves a political agenda is the opposite of neutral. --1.55.183.244 (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here. If it is supported by the source, then you should use it. If you were truly unbiased, you would accept whatever the source says. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No one is disputing Han Chinese is not Han Chinese. Read what User:Phlar said again carefully, and read the link: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/China-related_articles#Ethnicity that I have provided for you carefully also. Have a look at other similar articles to familiarize yourself with conventions in English Wikipedia, and also have a search at the discussion archives as stated in the top of this talk page so that we don't have to repeat the same discussions over again. Thanks. Alex Shih^Talk 08:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's disputing that Taiwanese Hans aren't ethnically Han Chinese. The page Han Taiwanese links to Han Chinese. It's a more specific subgroup of Hans that the race/ethnic group as a whole, like how the English are of Germanic origin. — Jon C.^ॐ 10:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@ExGuardianNinja: Piping the Han Chinese link so it displays as Han isn't about bias or neutrality or following the source, it's simply a stylistic decision. As the Manual of Style says (thanks User:Alex Shih): When identifying people by ethnic group in China-related articles, refer to the Han people or Han rather than "Chinese people"... (emphasis added). The term "Han" is perfectly adequate. There is no need to add "Chinese" after it, especially not in the limited confines of the infobox. Note that the Hoklo link below it does not read "Hoklo Taiwanese" and the Aborigines link does not read "Taiwanese aborigines." Making the "Han" link read "Han Chinese" would be inconsistent with the others (and would violate the manual of style as already mentioned). Phlar (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@ExGuardianNinja: The ROC yearbook is a primary source. Primary sources don't carry the same weight as secondary ones, particularly for challenged claims. Szqecs (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The following changes are made to the lead section:

1. The lead sentence is reverted until there is consensus for change.
2. "neighbours" to "neighbors" since this article is mainly in American English.
3. "Taiwan is the most populous state that is not a member of the United Nations, and also possesses the largest economy of any state outside of the UN." to "Taiwan is the most populous state that is not a member of the United Nations and the largest economy outside the UN." States are often referred to as economies, and there is no separate economy in Taiwan like Hong Kong in China.
4. GDP ranking link to nominal

Szqecs (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110428091100/http://www.gio.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=28601&ctNode=3389 to http://www.gio.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=28601&ctNode=3389
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127214132/http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/yearbook/2005/p104.html to http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/yearbook/2005/p104.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120411063355/http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/culture/indigenous/ to http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/culture/indigenous/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009021955/http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/festival_c/index_e.htm to http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/festival_c/index_e.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101001175559/http://www.exam.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=5 to http://www.exam.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Berting Li: The lead sentence was established by consensus. "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia." Changes to this should be discussed first. Szqecs (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The consensus was, in your own words: "Alright I think we have a consensus to use "state" without link. Szqecs (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)" This followed a discussion about state v country (by a small group). The lead sentence covers a little bit more than state v country, much of which is POV. Therefore, there is no consensus relating to what to call this place. Taking an even wider view, this article is a cluster of different articles covering different topics, all squashed together. A complete rethink is needed. I suggest we try to obtain a consensus on 1/ what this article is about, and 2/ what it should be called. Please remember, we are not undoing a consensus, because one does not exist: we are creating consensus. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is that without changing anything else, the definition of the topic is a "state". It is still a consensus even if it wasn't discussed the way you want. You're welcome to re-discuss this, but don't disregard other's opinion just because you don't agree. Szqecs (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If you mean an independent entity answerable to nobody else then 'sovereign state' is all that is needed. Is "Taiwan" a sovereign state? Not according to its own government, or to mainland China, or to numerous other UN members. The term 'self governing island' appeals to me because it explains the defacto reality without giving opinion. Common sense says that there is no point creating an article that defines 'Taiwan' as a sovereign state' when the govt of Taiwan itself disagrees. However, seeing as that is what you, and some others, have tried to do with this consensus, then you will have to accept a multitude of editorial problems, which is what is happening. This consensus amounts to nothing more than POV and should be regarded as invalid because it contradicts a basic WP principle. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The current term used is "state", not "sovereign state", so stop talking nonsense. As for your proposal, shall we also call China and North Korea "self-governing places"? This term is totally biased. Szqecs (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you now confirming that consensus has not established that Taiwan and ROC are one and the same thing, and that the consensus only dealt with calling it a state or a country. But if we do not know what we are referring to (because we have no consensus on whether Taiwan and ROC are the same or not), then how can we agree if it is a state, a country, an island, a province, a sovereign state, or anything else?

Now, before you start accusing me or any other editor of talking nonsense, please consider that you will inevitably get a whole host of confusing discussions if you insist on trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. That is what we are doing by treating Taiwan and ROC as the same. Please remember that this article is meant to be encyclopedic, not for a travel brochure. Wikipedia readers deserve better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether Taiwan and ROC are the same thing is discussed elsewhere and I have no interest in that. Consider it temporary if you will, but we have to define the topic because that is how Wikipedia works. Szqecs (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Berting Li: I agree with you that not everybody in the world agrees with the status of Taiwan as a state. I'm not just talking about the PRC alone, but other countries including in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world, do not agree that Taiwan is an independent state. As for the suggested wording "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia.", I think we all can agree that this statement is disputed and there is no consensus to include such wording in the official page.

So since there is no consensus, if that statement were to be included in the official page, we should at least mention that this article is disputed and the facts therein may contain inaccuracies, and invite contributions from the community to make this article more neutral. A notice on Wikipedia's policy of speaking from a neutral point of view (NPOV) should be included prominently on the article.

Otherwise, I suggest that we revert the wording to a previous version that abides by Wikipedia's NPOV policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie.lim (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan is originally the name of a geographic region. Republic of China is a state. This article should be related only to Taiwan which is currently so. However, it is totally confusing when one types Republic of China into the search box and redirected to Taiwan. Republic of China is a state established in 1912 in mainland China with completely no relation to Taiwan before 1945, and has only become the de-facto state of Taiwan since 1949.-Miklcct (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It is only confusing to anyone who buys into the "1 China" delusion. Since 1949, China is the mainland state and Taiwan is the island state. Just because the leadership of Taiwan began as the leadership of China and the constitution was originally the constitution of China doesn't change the fact that the idea that current Taiwan is the "same state" as pre-1949 China is totally ludicrous. And the sooner the people of both states just get over themselves and FREAKING MOVE ON, the better the world will be. --Khajidha (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No. This was thoroughly discussed five years ago, and the consensus was for the current arrangement. See Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20. If you want to change this it would need a similar discussion to overturn that consensus but that seems very unlikely to succeed. If anything in the five years since that discussion the consensus seems even clearer. The use of "Republic of China" has become even more historic and the country is overwhelmingly known as "Taiwan".--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Netherlands is a state often called Holland. That doesn't make Holland the Netherlands. Stick to facts and you won't go far wrong.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell more people say "Netherlands" than "Holland". Szqecs (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't heard anyone calling it Holland in DECADES. --Khajidha (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There are two questions here:

1. What should be the title of this article? The linked RM and various discussions since have repeatedly demonstrated a consensus for the common name of the state, i.e. "Taiwan".
2. What should readers get if they search for "Republic of China"? The usual way to settle that is to ask whether there is a primary topic for the term. That depends on whether you're interested in current events or in history, and as JohnBlackburne says the use of this term with reference to the present is increasingly rare. If there isn't a primary topic, that argues that "Republic of China" should be either a disambiguation page or a WP:CONCEPTDAB page. Previous discussions of this issue can be found here and at Talk:Republic of China (disambiguation).

Kanguole 16:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

As seen above there are still many people who think the state is best called "Republic of China". They are best served by the redirect. This article is still the primary topic, as the only modern use for "Republic of China". There is a disambiguation page, linked in the first lines, for other uses of "Republic of China". but none of them comes close to challenging the primary topic, being either historic or dependent on the modern ROC. A concept dab is even worse – there is no "broad conceot" for the "Republic of China", different from the current article at Taiwan, and it would be in danger of quickly becoming a content fork, as editors who disagree with the consensus established five years ago seek to create an article reflecting their views.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Historical topics can continue to be important, and people continue to talk and write about them, so it does not follow that modern uses of the phrase "Republic of China" are exclusively about Taiwan. Readers of volumes 12 and 13 of The Cambridge History of China, for example, might search for "Republic of China", and would be surprised to be sent here.

The move discussion you reference decided that this article should be called "Taiwan", but did not specify that "Republic of China" should be a redirect. In fact the closing statement suggested that it could be an article on the government and history of the ROC.

As for the broad concept, I would suggest that the article currently at History of the Republic of China could serve. Kanguole 17:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Although in modern terms Republic of China = Taiwan, the existence of the redirect implies that Republic of China is identical to Taiwan. This is clearly not the case as ROC has no relationship with Taiwan in a significant period of her history. The discussions years before did not specify that the redirect should be here, but only specified that this article should be named Taiwan. I also agreed that this is the Taiwan article because it focuses on the modern state but I think that the redirect is simply ignorant to the integral part of the ROC history before she came (or, in some groups political view, exiled) to Taiwan.

Furthermore, French Fifth Republic also exists as a separate article to France, and it is always the French government since the establishment. However. ROC is the Chinese government before 1949 and the Taiwanese government after 1949, and I see no reason to the redirect. -Miklcct (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It does not imply that Republic of China and Taiwan mean exactly the same. Only that it is the primary topic, for that name. If someone types "Republic of China" into the search box, what is the most likely article they are looking for? It is the country, Taiwan. Until 2012 the article was located at Republic of China and although the consensus in 2012 was for the article to be moved, there were then and still are editors who think the article should be at Republic of China. I.e. they think it is best called "Republic of China".The best thing therefore is to have it as a redirect to where the article actually is.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The official name of "Taiwan" is the Republic of China, removing the redirect would serve absolutely no one (except for either pro-Communist Party of China or pro-Taiwanese independence editors), and claiming that this article should only focus on the island 🏝 of Taiwan negates the article Geography of Taiwan completely. Comparably it would be like deleting the redirect "United States of America" because it's commonly called the "United States" and make it a disambiguation to the Confederate States of America ans the current U.S.A. --1.55.183.244 (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

We run a grave risk in assuming that there are two separate states - China and Taiwan. That amounts to twisting the facts to suit a POV. There is only one China. The complication is that it has two governments that happen to control two separate parts of China. That may not suit some of the above editors who want to create the artificial situation of two states because 'most people think' there are two states. That assumption is simplistic in the extreme and will only lead to contradictions and confusion. The average reader of WP deserves better. This article is (I think) about the part of China that is a few islands off the east coast. It is not about the actual island of Taiwan and it is not about the ROC, most of which is not controlled by the govt of the ROC. In that sense both headings - Taiwan and ROC - are incorrect. We need to think harder than just to take the easy option of choosing either Taiwan, the ROC, or a combination of both. Perhaps the term 'Chinese Taipei', horribly artificial though it is, does have some merit because it does identify the part of China that this article is about without making any incorrect factual assumptions. Both "Taiwan" and ROC" could be redirected here. Consensus was created years ago? Well, consensus can be wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It is also running a risk in assuming that Taiwan (island) is part of China because many reliable sources do not agree with that. As for the nature of this article, I think it is not about any island and is about a political entity called Republic of China, which claims to be the sole legal representative of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is never wrong, as consensus is how things are decided here. So once consensus is settled on an issue, that is the right answer to whatever is being decided

Consensus can change though. Over time facts change to make an old decision wrong. A non-notable subject becomes notable, for example, or evidence is uncovered to support a different outcome. In fact in this case it did change, with the move from Republic of China to Taiwan reflecting an update from the previous consensus. If anything the arguments now are even stronger for the current name, as over time the formal name is less and less known, and the country is overwhelmingly referred to as "Taiwan", even by its government.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You are correct that consensus is never wrong: it is also never right - it is what it is, consensus. That though is a pedantic point in this discussion. To say 'the decision reached by consensus was wrong' would be better grammatically and for that old decision to be wrong we do not necessarily need new facts. We might perhaps need new facts to open a discussion that leads to a new consensus that leads to a change in the article, if that is what you mean. However, I do not want to be dragged off course by technicalities but instead stick to some general points. The fact that there are so many editors who have an issue with this article (not just one or two) confirms that the decision reached years ago by consensus might need to be looked at again. Confusing Taiwan with the ROC, as this article does, opens all sorts of contradictions and illogical statements. For example, the formal name of Taiwan is not the ROC, it is Taiwan, which forms part of the ROC. Any debate about secession movements from the ROC within Taiwan, and within the ROC govt, is another matter and should not be muddled up with the 'name' debate, which it usually is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it's not conforming to WP:NPOV to assert that Taiwan (island) is part of the ROC because there are reliable sources which disagree with that opinion. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There may be many differing opinions, but we should include sources that are neutral. So yes, I agree with Matt that we should remove any wording that implies Taiwan or the ROC is recognised as an independent state. There are reliable sources that strongly disagree with such an assertion. The importance here is to correctly word the article in a neutral tone. For example, "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia." is an assertion that is not neutral as there are reliable sources disputing this assertion, however, "Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China (ROC), is an area claimed in its entirety by the People's Republic of China (PRC). Although its government maintains all the characteristics of one belonging to a typical independent state, it is not recognised as a state in the United Nations and only 20 countries in the world have official diplomatic relations with it." I believe my statements here are more neutral and acceptable to all. Always leave no room for disputes if we are making an assertion. Katie.lim (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Your belief is wrong. The current introduction section is neutral and explains the complicated history (e.g. about the UN, the fact that the ROC was a founding member is not less important than that it is now a non-member). The question may be what the word "state" means here. If you believe in the declarative theory of statehood (say, the Montevideo Convention), the sentence is obviously correct. If you believe "state" means "recognised by most other countries", do you agree that the PRC was not a state before the 1970s? —Kusma (t·c) 09:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The current introduction section is of course not neutral. Even from the viewpoint of the declarative theory of statehood (say, the Montevideo Convention), the sentence is still controversial. See the reliable source below.^[1] --Matt Smith (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)