Active discussions
Taiwan was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
August 9, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 13, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 4, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 9, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 26, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 13, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 14, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 16, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 27, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 10, 2004, and February 28, 2011.
Current status: Delisted good article

English variety: non-consensual changesEdit

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

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

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

Incidentally, this first edit that "corrected" spelling in the article in July 2003 used the non-US spelling of "favour" while <joke mode on> retaining the existing non-US spelling of "traitorous" <joke mode off>. Since Taiwan is not classed as an "English-speaking" country, consequently this article can not have what Wikipedia policy terms as "strong national ties" to a variety of English and, instead, MOS:RETAIN rules: non-US English should be used consistently throughout this article (except for direct quotations, of course).--BushelCandle (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The same editor used Oxford English spelling when, a few minutes later, this passage was introduced: "The Republic of China continues to be officially recognized (rather than "recognised") by 27 nations, mostly small countries in Central America and Africa but also including the Holy See. The People's Republic of China has a policy of not having diplomatic relations with any nation which recognizes (rather than "recognises") the Republic of China and insists that all nations with which it has diplomatic relations make a statement which recognizes (rather than "recognised") its claims on Taiwan." --BushelCandle (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There was consensus about a year ago to use American style English in this Taiwan article since Taiwan teaches Mandarin and American English in all its schools. The date style format did not have consensus one way since Taiwan uses an oddball style of dates. And "recognize" is the American English variety. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I rather assumed that would be the case. However, I did search the archives and did not find anything that would help me. (The section at Talk:Taiwan/Archive_28#Spelling did not reach a clear consensus, so since Taiwan is neither obviously an English speaking nation, nor with a substantial minority speaking a specific national version of English, I used our usual tiebreaker of original version, as outlined above.) Consequently I then fell back on our generic policies as I summarised above.
You do realise that as well as "recognize" being the way Americans spell, it is also correct in the Oxford English spelling variety - a subset of Commonwealth or British English?
Can you provide a diff for the consensus you write about, please? --BushelCandle (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
But "Recognise" is the Commonwealth spelling that is usually attributed to British English. That Spelling section DID reach a consensus that American English should be used. The article has many intermingled varieties, which is bad, and it's why we should err on the the English variety that the country itself uses. It tennis articles we use the variety of English the individual players use, and I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same here. There are spellings of program, neighborhood, labor, and center (American English spellings)... along with counterpart British spellings. A mish-mash. With a mish-mash, if we are going to use a particular variety it should be what the country itself uses and teaches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I note that you have not provided a diff to the spelling consensus that you wrote about above and that I asked you to provide.
The way that things should go according to policy is as follows:
a) Taiwan is not an Anglophone nation so no particular variety of English is prescribed (see also RfC on English variety and date format in Taiwan-related articles right at the beginning of this section)
b) It is established policy that there should NOT be a "mish-mash" of spellings within the body text of any one article
c) The consequences of considering (a) and (b) together is that we now need to pick a variety of English, label the picked variety on this article and this, that article's talk page using the appropriate template and then make sure that the article is kept consistent with that variety. If anyone opposes this simple and logical conclusion then please speak now or forever hold thy peace!
d) Unless we can reach a clear local consensus (not yet reached, as the Rfc conclusively demonstrated) then the variety of English is decided by choosing to "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety."
e) Unfortunately (from a strictly personal point of view, since I personally am rather uncomfortable using Oxford English), those first post-stub revisions (by the same editor) used Oxford English and consequently, without a clear local consensus to use a different variety, means that it is Oxford English that is the de jure variety for this article.
However, we can console ourselves with the knowledge that it is that Oxford variety of English that is officially or de facto used in the style guides of the international organizations that belong to the United Nations System that Taiwan is intent on remaining part of (or rejoining) such as the World Health Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, the International Labour Organization, the World Food Programme, the International Court of Justice, and UNESCO, together with all UN treaties and declarations, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Other international organizations that adhere to this standard are also important to Taiwan and include the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Interpol, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International and the World Economic Forum --BushelCandle (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Even A is really incorrect. In 2019 Taiwan will have two official languages and one of them is the American style English taught in schools. With it being their language of choice it's what should be used here. Things should not be changed into a language they don't use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

It did, but per your statement we should continue to use all types of spellings in the article? If so, you should practice what you preach since you changed urbanize to urbanise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
That word was first spelled 'urbanised', changed by another user. Ythlev (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
It is partly because "spelling wars" can waste a great deal of editor time and attention and lead to non-collegial feelings proliferating that we need to stick to Wikipedia's established policies until and unless a clear local consensus develops to consistently use a different variety than Oxford English.--BushelCandle (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
In 2018 a user started laterally changing the American English to British English in this particular article. That was why we had consensus in a discussion to make him stop, and we reverted it back. That time period is where we should be looking since this article has been written and re-written many times since it was created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
And now that I look at user Ythlev and his aliases of (Szqecs and Szqecs1), he was the user that was causing all the problems. Looks like hes back with a new moniker! Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It really would help move matters forward if you would respond directly to the points raised in this discussion. To make this easier for you I will ask you a series of direct questions:
[A] What is the diff of this 2018 discussion that reached a clear spelling consensus? (If there wasn't one or you can't locate it then please say that clearly)
[B] Do you think this article should have a "mish-mash" or mixture of English varieties and date formats? (Yes or no, please.)
[C] Do you believe that this version of our article has, in the main, a consistent variety of English and date format? ie Oxford English and D-M-Y. (Yes or no, please.)--BushelCandle (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
A - It's in the July 2018 archives, B - No, C - No . Per the last discussion if any consistent form is to be used it should be American style English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Last year you were a big problem, enough that we had to have a discussion on it and multiple editors had to revert all your changes. This time it was only once that I noticed so no problem, but I had no idea until my last post that I was dealing with the same editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
My stance is simple:
I believe that within the body text of this article there should be a consistent variety of English used and, in the absence of a clear local consensus to favour a different variety, that variety of English should be the ORIGINAL, 2003 variety of Oxford English (in conformance with official policy and unfortunately, in view of the local Taiwanese preference for US spelling). --BushelCandle (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
"Official policy?" Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I made that same point before but Fyunck(click) wouldn't have it. So for the sake of avoiding an edit war, just leave the spellings be. Ythlev (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
You made 100s if not 1000s of non-consensus changes to dozens of Taiwan related pages last time, that had to be reverted by multiple editors, not just me. You convinced me that, even though Taiwan rarely uses dmy date format, to leave that alone. So I did. But it was against consensus to try and change everything to British English. Consensus was that if anything this article was to be in American English. In 2019 Taiwan will have two official languages, one of them being English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

What the heck are you talking about? What would you like me to say that I haven't already explained? You have disrupted so many times in the past that my head was spinning back then. But that was with all your other aliases and I assume you have changed your ways from forcing changes against the last consensus here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Before the editor Szqecs|Szqecs1 rampage of 2018 (which an administrator had to step in to stop), this is how the article handled it English variety:
Word British occurrences US occurrences Comments
authorised/authorized 0 1
behaviour/behavior 1 0
colour/color 1 0
centre/center 3 5 "center" appears another 9 times in non-Taiwanese proper names and citations
characterised/characterized 0 1
criticised/criticized 0 3
defence/defense 9 4 "defense" appears another 9 times in non-Taiwanese proper names and citations
democratis-/democratiz- 0 7
formalised/formalized 0 1
industrialise/industrialisation/industrialize/industrialization 0 5
labour/labor 2 3
labourer/laborer 1 1
liberalis-/liberaliz- 0 2
metre/millilmetre/kilometre/meter/millimeter/kilometer 3 0
neighbour/neighbor 2 3
organised/organization/organized/organization 0 10 there are another 12 instances of "Organization" in proper names
programme/program 0 9 "programme" appears once in reference to a non-Taiwanese proper name: Programme for International Student Assessment
polarised/polarized 0 2
privatis-/privatiz- 0 2
publicised/publicized 0 1
recognis-/recogniz- 0 8 I did not count two instances of "recognised" in the infobox field labels
sinicise/sinicisation/sinicize/sinicization 0 2
stabilis-/stabiliz- 0 3
theatre/theater 1 0
Total 23 74
This is another reason consensus was set for American styled English as the article was overwhelmingly done in American English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), I'd like to point out that ize/ization spellings are perfectly valid in British English, so their use should not necessarily be treated as US English. Adam9007 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

I brought it up at ANI. We shall see what they have to say. Ythlev (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
On that narrow urbanized/built-up point, there is a difference in meaning between where its highly urbanized population is concentrated and where its population is concentrated in highly built-up areas. The change was a worthy attempt to work around the edit war, but if we're having to reword to avoid -ise/-ize words, the style dispute is having a detrimental effect on the content. Kanguole 09:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. You can only go so far with neutral wording. Ythlev (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I wonder how many more instances we can change to neutral wording? It might be worth a try. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

You can't change everything to neutral wording, but you can often do some. On urbanized, I understand the difference in meaning, but I don't see the second as any worse. Given nowhere in the article do we call the population urbanized, the change was actually a better fit for the article text. I'd replace "built-up" with just "urban" myself, but that's minor. CMD (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I do agree with Kanguole, Fyunck(click), Ythlev and CMD that my forlorn attempt at commonality changed meaning slightly and that one "can't change everything to neutral wording". However, I also detect that some of you may have realized that my primary motivation is to deflect and divert from "spelling wars" that can waste a great deal of editor time and attention and escalate the build-up of non-collegial feelings when we really do need to stick to Wikipedia's established policies until and unless a clear local consensus develops to consistently use a different variety than the original Oxford English.--BushelCandle (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
To assist in this aim, here's a useful list of Oxford English spellings from the United Nations.--BushelCandle (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Which is why we went through this last year with the article mostly in American English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
There must be synonyms and minor re-write tweaks that can alleviate all the spelling differences. That is a compromise worth some effort I think. I tried my best on some but perhaps other writers can find better choices on others? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent edits trying to find opportunities for exercising commonality Fyunck(click), it's much appreciated and a policy compliant tactic.
careful editing rather than spasm reverting is appreciated!
However, either having a mixture of English varieties (outwith quotations) or unilaterally reverting to an arbitrary point in this article's history where spellings were mixed does flout established Wikipedia policy standards and irritate some editors.
PS: I nearly forgot to thank you for the careful and painstaking way you changed Oxford English spellings to US spellings, being very careful not to lose other edits not related to spelling variety in the process...--BushelCandle (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I did my best not to have a mixture at all, and I think we can do better to remove/rewrite any argumentative words. It is not an arbitrary point in history however. Someone picking 7 May 2019 or 16 April 2019 would be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
There really are only a few points in an article's history of editing that are NOT arbitrary: the very first edit to the article and the version that first introduced an identifiable variety of English. I have sourced the first edit that introduced a non-US variety of English right at the very beginning of this section, the only thing then left to do was to decide whether the article was then originally written in Hiberno, Australian, Indian or some other variety of English and I have also cited above the very next edit by the same editor that clarified that (of all the varieties of non-US English s/he could have used) they used Oxford English.
Now please stop trying to circumvent our Manual of Style: use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety - Oxford English.--BushelCandle (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Any article can be changed to anything by consensus. Nothing is forever here. Plus MOS states "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." There was consensus to change, and the most consistent usage, since it was re-written many times, is by far American English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
If and when a consensus is reached to change this article's spelling from the ORIGINAL non-US English variety, then that would be within the rules - but I certainly don't see any such consensus so far. And, in the absence of such consensus, the original variety from 2003 needs to retained. End of.--BushelCandle (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The we will have to completely agree to disagree on that point. However the first usage in the article was the non-oxford date format in American style, MDY.... multiple times, and way before your listed entry. "Recognize" is certainly not British English but is either Oxford or American English so that one is moot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

@Fyunck(click): Do not convert more words if you have nothing to say to these points. Ythlev (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Back to BushelCandle's last edit. And who the heck appointed you God? This is what got you in trouble with administration last time you went edit warring and changed thousands of articles against consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I got in trouble for using AWB to make controversial edits, which is not allowed. There is no rule against making controversial edits manually. And you are now the one ignoring discussion, which is disruptive editing. Ythlev (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want to change the last consensus go ahead a start a new RfC. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The last consensus was to prefer no particular style. Ythlev (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Wonky layout due to picturesEdit

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

There are a few excessive images, e.g. in the Military section, but the real problem is more the three overloaded infoboxes at the start of the article, which push the illustrations for the early sections into a huge stack. Kanguole 18:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes the images are somewhat excessive, but another problem of whitespace is the overwhelming pile of images on the right side. I have moved some to the left to help with the logjam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
As I say, the real cause of the logjam is the excessive infoboxes. Also, when you move an image near the end of a section to the left, that can bump the next section heading to the right, which looks awful. Kanguole 20:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It can do that regardless of whether it's near the end or not. But there's no way for me to tell since everyone has a different window size to view the page. There were (and still are) too many pics on the right side. It looked perfect from my end. But yes... that first infobox is long, but I think shorter than the United Kingdom infobox. But then we have two more ridiculous infoboxes that really interfere with photos. Strange, I tried adding the "collapse" attribute to the two extra infoboxes, but it doesn't seem to work for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the name boxes:
  • There is no need for images of the characters, when we have the characters as text just below.
  • The Tibetan, Zhuang, Mongolian, Uyghur and Manchu versions of "Republic of China" are out of place here. Deleting them would not be a loss of information, as they are duplicated in Republic of China (1912–1949), where they make more sense.
There's a fair bit of cruft in the main box too (deputy speaker??). Kanguole 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Republic of China Marine Corps frogmen during the 2016 National Day celebration
Republic of China Military Police is a separate branch in the armed forces. In the picture, a military policeman stands guard in Hsinchu Air Base

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

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

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

I agree. Also, the Military section is one of the most overloaded with images. I'd suggest just the aircraft and the ships (and there are better images of this aircraft on the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo page). Kanguole 12:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree trim is needed.--Moxy 🍁 00:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Please would you explain the concept of "overloaded" and "trim is needed" when, with the consistent and default right positioning and default sizes, all of these relevant, informative and good quality images can be comfortably accommodated without the images spilling into the subsequent section?
The images removed were an important illustrative aid to understanding the quality and range of capabilities of Taiwan's armed forces. If you believe otherwise, then please advance your rationale.
If that rationale is convincing, then our policy is to, when possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones.
Please also explain why alt text for one of the remaining images of "Two warships in dock" is superior and more helpful to the visually impaired than "Two of the navy's current destroyers in dock". --BushelCandle (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Five images is too many for a section of that size – we should select those that best illustrate what the text is saying. Not all readers are using a desktop screen.
Alt text needs to complement the caption, not repeat it. Kanguole 16:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree we need to keep WP:ACCESS issues in mind. Removing the sandwiching was correct, but even right-aligned, I don't think the section is really long enough to hold more than two images.
On the image choices, I don't find any of the three images currently included (thunderbolt truck, indigenous plane, American-made ships) as being significant aids to understanding. The removed military police one actually provides some useful information, and if space remains the fighter jet seems the most informative as it has a notable bit of information.
On sandwiching more generally, the practice of alternating images is well established, although placing images left can cause some issues such as overlapping with section headers. In my experience, country articles are prone to suffer from image overload (and other overloads), and careful selection is important. (For example here the APEC summit picture seems insignificant, and the caption from the relief map geography image could be modified to fit the köppen climage image instead.) CMD (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you mean the caption of the military police image, rather than the image itself. If the military police being a separate branch is so important (which I'm not sure it is), then it could be mentioned in the article text.
The destroyers are mentioned in the text, so it seems reasonable to show them (particularly for readers who know what to look for in a modern warship). Kanguole 15:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
In the Transport section, the high-speed trains seem more interesting than the row of plane tails. Kanguole 15:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I am taking the caption and image together in these assessments since none of the images jumps out by itself. However important the note on the Military Police is, I find it a better caption than simply identifying a vehicle. Similarly, a better caption on the ship image would be appreciated.
Agreed on the train vs plane tails. CMD (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Republic of China (Taiwan)Edit


Regarding the question of the English language name for this government, I think it's clear that the government heavily favors the formulation "Republic of China (Taiwan)" over a straight "Republic of China". I am just following what the existing, functional government is saying about itself. The argument for "Republic of China" seems to be favoring the PRC's position on the Constitution of the Republic of China, and that's not really interesting compared to the following collection of links where a living, breathing, fully operational government is declaring itself to be "Republic of China (Taiwan)" since at least 2008. English Wikipedia is not supposed to be a pro-Chinese Communist Party website- it's supposed to be a neutral, unbiased source of information for the English speaking audience. "Office of the President Republic of China (Taiwan)"; "Copyright © 2014 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) All Rights Reserved."; "Copyright © 2018 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) "; cf. "Taiwan (R.O.C.) SNAPSHOT Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

It's really the government's fault. Doing so for English but not Chinese opens the door for this kind of dispute. Ythlev (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The constitution of the ROC does not add any parentheses after the formal name. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
In Chinese. Ythlev (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The ROC gov't isn’t adding "(Taiwan)" because it’s part of the official name, it’s adding the common name, Taiwan, as a parenthetical descriptor so that people will know what country they’re referring to. Phlar (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It does not seem so in this quote from president Tsai "We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China (Taiwan)."[1]. There is no law specifying the English official name, so the government could use different names flexibly, and adjust the name to fit the political stance of the party in power. Also in this government publication [2] it explicitly says the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)--Visaliaw (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Interesting citations. I wonder how the BBC concluded that she intended to put “Taiwan” in parenthesis, given that she was speaking, not writing. She could have just as easily meant it to be separated with a comma instead of parens. They also added “the” before “Republic of China” even though she clearly didn’t say “THE Republic of China” in the interview. But that’s beside the point—your MOFA reference clearly supports the inclusion of “(Taiwan)” in the official name. Phlar (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The website of the office of the president shows the full text of that interview.[3].--Visaliaw (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The official name of Taiwan is simply the Republic of China, pursuant to its constitution. Quetstar (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The constitution is in Chinese. It does not say 中華民國 should to be translated into Republic of China.--Visaliaw (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The arguments here don't make much sense to me. The official English translation of Côte d'Ivoire is Côte d'Ivoire, yet we call it Ivory Coast. So we don't follow the English translations of governments anyway. 中華民國 has always been translated in English as Republic of China. It doesn't seem neutral to me to change that. Also, many government websites still write Republic of China, without reference to Taiwan. Are they less official? De wafelenbak (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Your analogy doesn't make sense to me. The Ivory coast article says "officially the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire", which follows the English translation of the government.--Visaliaw (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Until a consensus is reached, the long form should not be altered. As De wafelenbak points out, other government sites still refer to the ROC as just the "ROC" even the presidency The introduction to the Constitution and from the Mainland Affairs Council the Act Governing Relations Between the Mainland Area and the Taiwan Area. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The title of your link is Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan). The English constitution on the website does not have legal validity equivalent to that of the Chinese version. Actually government websites uses all three names Republic of China, Republic of China(Taiwan), and Taiwan to refer to the state. The most prevalent out of the three is Taiwan, see the title and contents of those government news announcements[4][5][6]. The current article preferring Republic of China over the other two names is not neutral. Republic of China (Taiwan) is a compromise of the three names. --Visaliaw (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, I am able to read thank you, I did not provide the link to be told about the title of the link, I'm aware of that. It is the content within the link which I used. As to the English constitution not having equal standing with the Chinese version, well, you'd probably find the latter referring more to "Republic of China." In what way will ANY of the names ever be truly "Neutral?" The constitutional title of the state is Republic of China, which has long been accepted, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find consensus to change it any time soon. Otherwise, we'd be in a position where we'd be saying "officially the Republic of China (Taiwan)" and constitutionally the Republic of China, which makes things even more longwinded."

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

The Chinese name 中華民國 does not automatically translate to Republic of China in English, you are confusing two different things.
  • 中華民國律師公會 is "Taiwan Bar association" in English [7]
  • 中華民國內分泌學會 is "The Endocrine Society of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" in English[8]
  • 中華民國棒球協會 is "Chinese Taipei baseball association" in English[9]
  • 中華民國全國漁會 is "National Fishermen's Association Taiwan, R.O.C" in English [10]

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

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

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

Probably the best way to do it. We should keep the constitutional name in the inbox, however Republic of China (Taiwan) is highly used by the government. --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
No, that is just absurd. The addition provides no additional information. Ythlev (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
What do you suggest? The purpose of the addition is not to provide additional information but to maintain neutrality, since both names are used by the government. I don't understand why you think it is absurd. As other editors have told you below, it would be more constructive if you could review the previous discussions and provide an argument for your reasoning..--Visaliaw (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how replacing a Taiwan and an ROC with 2 Taiwans and 2 ROCs is any more neutral.Ythlev (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that websites are not official documents, but passports are, and they say Republic of China in the Nationality field. Ythlev (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
If you read the discussion above, this sections starts with an official document using Republic of China (Taiwan)--Visaliaw (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence needs to be easily readable. Adding another variant of the "official" name would make it much harder to read. The subtleties of the government’s various and inconsistent naming conventions do not need to be described in the first sentence. The current wording informs the reader that this state goes by "Taiwan," "Republic of China" and "ROC". This covers all the bases—we don’t need to list other combinations of these three monikers.
We already have the following sentence in the Etymology section: In some contexts, especially ROC government publications, the name is written as "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China/Taiwan", or sometimes "Taiwan (ROC)". Maybe the problem with the first sentence lies in the word "officially". Do we have to declare an official name in the first sentence? How about changing "officially" to "also called"? And perhaps the discussion in Etymology could be expanded, maybe even given its own " Official name" subsection. Phlar (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Many people believe Taiwan and ROC are different. Ythlev (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure who is included in your "many people," but the average American isn't sure that Taiwan is not Thailand, has never heard of the "ROC" and doesn't see a difference between "Republic of China" and "People’s Republic of China" ("isn't the former just a shortened version of the latter?"). The first sentence needs to be written with these average readers in mind. Phlar (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The many users who would revert such a change. Ythlev (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
No matter what we write the first sentence will constantly be challenged and edited. We as a community of editors have to come to a consensus on what it should say and then maintain/defend that. Phlar (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I believe we should follow the living ROC (Taiwan)'s interpretation of its own constitution and legal framework rather than the PRC's interpretation of that constitution. That ROC (Taiwan) interpretation can be seen on the English language documents and websites generated throughout the ROC (Taiwan) territory, including Quemoy and Matsu and the PRC interpretation is not really relevant except on the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China page where PRC claims are documented. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC) (modified)
If you read the discussion above, I provided an argument about the constitution only specifying the Chinese name but not English name.--Visaliaw (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The passport does. Ythlev (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussing neutralityEdit

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

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

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

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

EDIT: I would like to clarify a couple points:

 > Fall of China refers to the fall of China to communism, not the fall of the ROC. This is wrong because as Wikipedia, we're supposed to be as neutral as possible. Capitalism and communism are different ideas, it's not as if one is superior to the other.
 > Nowhere did I say that the ROC wasn't a state, I just said we needed to add such terms as "disputed" to eliminate accusations of Selective reporting
 > Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
   >> Both parties/sides (the majority) accept the One-China Policy and thus this view should be expressed in the article.

I strongly oppose your proposed edits. It's very clear that you're trying to push a pro China POV and it's not constructive at all. Other editors have raised this concern when they corrected reverted your edits. Île flottante (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Île flottante: While it may sound as such, to a third party terms like the "fall of China" provides such connotations as "the right and just cause has failed" - which is not at all neutral. Also, such terms as "called upon the international community" vs. "requested assistance from the international community" and "democracy" both provide connotations as "Taiwan > PRC," which naturally isn't really neutral either. The state is disputed. I strongly advise you read the Kosovo page. Just because Taiwan has a different political structure does not mean it gets a page any different than the Kosovo one. Do you agree? Also, what happened to the One China policy? Both nations agree to it but we're still here insisting that they are different nations. Kosovo is referred to as a partially-recognized state in Southeast Europe, subject to a territorial dispute with the Republic of Serbia... I think you yourself are being slightly pro-Taiwan here; this appears to be Selective reporting. Augend (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Île flottante: To reiterate, the "loss of China" refers, in U.S. political discourse, to the unexpected Communist Party takeover of mainland China from the American-backed Nationalists in 1949, and therefore the "loss of China to communism". --- from our own Wikipedia page for "loss of China" - so I mean our own page calls it "American political discourse", implying that the status quo for "fall of China" isn't neutral; instead it uses a term from American political discourse - and the American standpoint on this matter is far from neutral. Augend (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with and reject your comparison between the articles covering Kosovo and Taiwan. The situations share no historical or political similarity. Moreover, editors are not bound by precedent in some stare decisis -esque fashion. The fall of China to communism is a fairly common turn of phrase. The one China policy does not bind Wikipedia. Île flottante (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you've completely proved your pro-Taiwan views on this point. They share all political similarity - fraught by communism and as a result of communism embroiled in conflict. Both Kosovo and Taiwan are disputed states. Thus descriptions on their status must be reasonably similar. One can't just go around calling a place a "state" with 14 countries recognizing it and go on another article calling another place a "partially-recognized state with as the subject of a territorial dispute" (mind you the second one has 115 countries recognizing it while Taiwan has 14, a difference of more than 100). The fall of China to communism is a term, again, present only in American propaganda. It is seldomly used out of the United States and the term is seen as derogatory to Communist Chinese persons. Surely you don't want to offend people here... replacing it to "the retreat of ROC forces to Taiwan" should be more accurate. I would like to reiterate: fall implies going downwards - fall of something to a cause implies that it has dropped to a lower level. That is blatantly wrong. Capitalism and communism are ideas, just different ideas, that's all. It's not as if one is worse than the other, and if you think that one is better than the other you are in no position to be commenting on this topic. As I said, it is important to make a clarification between de facto and de jure. De jure the One Policy is the accepted norm, and nothing you say will change anything about it. De facto is different. That is why it was so important to use these terms, see edit 2. Please don't bring your personal views in here. If you think China "fell" to a lower position on October 1st, 1949, then please excuse yourself from this discussion. Thank you. Augend (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
A State is defined in international law as having three characteristics (codified un article 1 of the Montevideo convention): a defined population, a defined territory and a government able to exercise control over the two. Taiwan has all of these and is therefore a state. Whether one or one hundred other states formally recognise that is immaterial. It’s only due to modern Chinese imperialism that other states don’t both recognise both Taiwan and China. If China didn’t pursue a hostile foreign policy mixed with repressive and discriminatory domestic policies, Taiwan would probably have long since formally changed its constitution. There’s really no point continuing to post this sort of pro-CCP nonsense because you’re unlikely to convince anyone. That other countries don’t recognise Taiwan is simply due to China’s international bullying, not due to any deeply held conviction on the sovereignty over the territory of Taiwan. Île flottante (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I think you may be going in the direction of creating a straw man here. Calling edits "pro-CCP nonsense" isn't going to be constructive in a discussion. Straying away from association fallacy may also be a good idea, there is no need to introduce such strong language in these discussions. Mopswade (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
They said "pro-CCP nonsense,” its extremely important to quote other editors accurately. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, edited. Mopswade (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Île flottante: Please refer to the edits again; where in the edits did I deny that Taiwan was a state? I merely intended on elaborating on the fact that it's a disputed state; this is the viewpoint most have, regardless if they support Taiwan's independence; in other words, most supporters of Taiwanese independence know that Taiwan suffers from limited recognition and it is in a territorial dispute with the PRC. This is fact, not opinion. Augend (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Île flottante: Also, until 1990, Taiwan maintained the same requirement as the PRC; that is, in order to have ties with either party, one must relinquish ties with the other. Obviously more countries have more economic/cultural ties with the mainland, so more countries opted to select China. Please do your research here. It is only within the past couple years that the ROC relinquished this policy, so it would be immaterial to call this policy "China's international bullying" - seeing that until a couple years ago the ROC held this policy too. Again, furthering my previous point, I'm not advocating for either side, I'm just saying it would be proper to highlight that it is a disputed state like Kosovo despite Kosovo having more recognition. I would also like to clarify that I'm quoting the article, not expressly calling the ROC something other than a state. It is important to include the term disputed; failure to do so would represent Selective reporting on Wikipedia's part. Augend (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Île flottante, the Montevideo Convention provides only one definition of a state. Note that under the convention, Canada would not be considered a state, although it was a founding member of the League of Nations and the U.S. had recognized it since 1926. TFD (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
TFD, Canada most certainly does pass the Montevideo convention in the present day due to the Constitution Act 1982 which formalised Canadian sovereignty. The exercise of de facto sovereignty prior royal assent fulfilled the criterion of effective government according to the Montevideo convention even before. The Constitution Act 1982 was passed to resolve internal legal questions, but Canada unilaterally entered into agreements with other subjects of international law before then, thus demonstrating the Canadian government's exercise of sovereignty. Remember, the Montevideo convention merely codified preexisting international customary law, which does not distinguish between a polity who formally owes sovereignty to another and ones who does not; the criterion is met when a government exercises full control over a population and a territory, regardless of whether that particular polity's internal law regards itself as sovereign or not. Prior to 1931 it's debatable whether Canada met the criteria as some decisions were still made in the United Kingdom. Île flottante (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Île flottante, it's questionable that Canada would have met the permanent population clause, since it did not have citizens. Or if you argue that it did, then Canadian provinces and British colonies would also meet the criteria. The convention did not codify existing criteria, but replaced the constitutive territory, which held that recognition alone mattered. So British India was recognized as a state when it was still a colony. In any case, Wikipedia policy determines which countries are states based on the conclusions in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose edits, OP lacks a basic understanding of wikipedia policy in particular WP:neutral. There also appears to be an english comprehension issue... There is nothing derogatory about “fall" in this context. Its literally a tautology that for the PRC to rise the ROC had to fall, you can't take territory without taking it from someone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: The issue isn't that; it would be convenient to describe what exactly is in issue with WP:NEUTRAL; it isn't constructive to cite all of these WP policies without actually using reasoning to back up your point; with grade-school claim-evidence-reasoning you have the claim and evidence, now's the time to explain yourself. While the ROC had to fall, you clearly don't understand the term; the term implies that China fell to communism, not the ROC fell; yes we understand the ROC had to fall for the PRC to rise, but the term refers to China falling to communism, not the ROC falling in favor of the PRC. Please refer to the definition and origin of terms before presenting your ideas; failure to do so will just make your point look irrelevant. This isn't an English comprehension issue; it's a you-didn't-bother-reading-the-Wikipedia-article-about-the-term-and-it's-background issue. Augend (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: There's also more to be heard here; in WP:Neutral it specifically notes Avoid stating opinions as facts - calling a "state" disputed if it only has 14 recognizing nations isn't an opinion, it's a fact (refer to the Kosovo page). Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts - most neutral outlets like Encyclopaedia Brittanica and major news outlets like Reuters and AP refer to Taiwan as a disputed territory/state, so per your own policy this criterion dissipates too. Avoid stating facts as opinions - this criterion is irrelevant. Prefer nonjudgmental language - specifically Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone - again, a disputed state isn't judging, the term "disputed" is seen in many other controversial topics pages so unless you'd like to modify the status quo (which go ahead nothing is stopping you from doing so), the usage of the term here should work. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views - Taiwan is a disputed state, and only ultra-nationalists call it otherwise. Many Taiwan folks say Taiwan is it's own nation, but all of them agree that Taiwan is in a disputed state and definitely not with the recognition that most nations receive. Further in your policy, "[f]or example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment" - again, while the term "disputed" might appear to pass judgement, it's a legitimate way to describe Taiwan, and the term "in a struggle with the PRC" appeared briefly in ROC documents. [i]f a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. as said before, most people recognize that, regardless if they accept Taiwan as a seperate country, Taiwan is in a state of dispute in terms of recognition. As mentioned, only ultra-nationalists (extremely small minority) think the ROC is universally accepted and administrates the entirety of the Chinese mainland. Please refer to WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Augend (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Re the ping you put on my talk page, I reaffirm that I disagree with your proposed edits and for the same reasons as I’ve put above. My response to what you you’ve just said would essentially be the same so I won’t repeat myself. Clearly there isn’t consensus for your proposed edits. Île flottante (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Île flottante: In all honesty, your reasons are far too Americentric/Eurocentric to actually be constructive. Many of your facts were incorrect, and clearly you think Taiwan isn't a disputed territory, that you haven't done enough research to adequately support your point (the ROC maintained almost the exact same requirements as the PRC until 1991, it's not the PRC's international bullying) and according to your explanations, you maintain that communism is worse than capitalism. Augend (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Being European, of course my viewpoint is European. Likewise, your viewpoint is influenced by your cultural background. In fact, everyone’s viewpoint is influenced by their background; that’s what makes humanity such a wonderfully diverse thing. My argument regarding the term state is a legal one: international public law sets conditions for statehood. Once those conditions are objectively met, a state is a state. Recognition is not a criteria of statehood in classical public international law outside the Americas (regional customary international law codified in the Montevideo convention). Taiwan not being situated within the Americas, its recognition or the lack thereof has no bearing on its statehood and therefore it is a legal fallacy to discuss ‘disputed’ statehood as such an appellation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a state is. Île flottante (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

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

@Ythlev: That isn't constructive. Lay out a couple reasons why, that's how things work there. Review the previous discussions and lay out your reasoning. Augend (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ythlev: Another thing - while I do not want to sound like this is a personal attack, you've been called out multiple times for failing to understand the NPOV policy, but more specifically, for edit warring over this exact topic. I'm not entirely sure you can, therefore, maintain an open mind and neutral POV in this scenario. Augend (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
This discussion won't be constructive regardless but I'll entertain you anyways. the One-China policy that both nations adhere to. Taiwan (ROC) does not adhere to no one-China policy. You probably got that idea from the constitution but a country's laws does not represent it's political position. In the UK, it is illegal to fly a kite in a public place. Also, the constitution does not mention anything about one-China. Ythlev (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Kosovo is referred to as a partially-recognized state. The word "partially-recognized" should be removed for Kosovo, not the other way around. The word is subjective. China and South Korea are also partially-recognized. Ythlev (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ythlev: When we say "partially recognized" we usually mean that a significant number of other, almost fully recognized countries do not recognize it. This is extremely true for Kosovo, where the vast majority of other countries do not recognize it. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 23:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ythlev: I agree with User:Augend. WP:CONSENSUS states that consensus in a discussion is not the result of a vote. Provide an argument for your reasoning. sam1370 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The phrase fall of China to communism (or fall of China implicitly referring to the PRC) does not seem WP:NPOV and can easily be replaced by different phrasing that expresses the historical outcome without using a phrase that can have good-bad connotations. If others still disagree, one should probably open an RfC for this. — MarkH21talk 09:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • From what I can see there is no consensus to make any of those changes. I would agree with Ythlev on this with a big nope. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A decision made with regards to one article (Kosovo) doesn’t have to analogically apply to other articles. Taiwan has been separated from China for much longer than Kosovo has from Serbia, the ROC also has historically had more diplomatic relations than the PRC did. For these reasons, I don’t think there’s need to add disputed because the situations are clearly different. In the spirit of compromise, however, how about we phrase it “the Constitution was drafted whilst the ROC still governed the Chinese mainland.” Île flottante (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sam1370: Thanks for your input. @Île flottante: I'm still on the fence regarding the difference between Kosovo and Taiwan, because indeed while the ROC has historically had more relations than the PRC, that's when the PRC didn't exist yet... also I'm not denying the historical background, but out of interest of relevance those historical details should go to the Republic of China page **whichever one discusses ROC history, I forgot the precise dates, I think it was like 1918-1949**. I'll agree that generally speaking a decision with regards to one article doesn't really apply...? but in this scenario Kosovo and Taiwan have extremely similar present-day situations (but different in magnitude seeing Kosovo has more recognition). Regarding your compromise, that edit seems to work out for me. Augend (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Île flottante: Yes, but Taiwan is still a disputed state that is recognized by even less countries than Kosovo. It being a disputed state is an important fact that relates to how it came to be, so it really should be included. I see no reason not to honestly. sam1370 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sam1370: As I've explained above, there's no such thing as a disputed state because a state is either objectively a state or it isn't. You can deny Mars is a planet as much as you like, but that doesn't make Mars a "disputed" planet because it meets the objective criteria. Likewise, Taiwan meets the objective criteria of a state (population, territory and effective government). China's imperialist foreign policy and bullying of other countries may affect where other countries chose to establish embassies, but Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Taiwan is objectively a state and there's no legal disputation regarding that. Again, recognition is not a criterion for statehood. Île flottante (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Île flottante: As said, however, on the Kosovo page it includes the term disputed. It's disputed and that's it, we have to include it or else that's selectively reporting. I've also said, you can't call something imperialist bullying if Taiwan also practiced the same policy. Augend (drop a line) 21:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
A disputed state is not a thing. We do not have to include it. Consensus is clearly against including it. Île flottante (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Go to the Kosovo article and remove the wording “disputed state” and replace it with “state”. I guarantee you they will not stand for that. Taiwan is, completely objectively, a disputed state. It has limited recognition. Therefore disputed. Yes it is mostly disputed because of China, but that’s besides the point. It is objectively disputed. sam1370 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
China is also objectively disputed. So is Israel. Ythlev (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Israel is mentioned in the Arabic Wikipedia as disputed. China isn't mentioned as disputed because by now no one actively challenges "who has authority over mainland China" anymore, it's just the divisive issue of "who has authority over Taiwan". Also, including mainland China as limited-recognition (which is true) gives undue weight to the countries that don't. Whereas here, calling Taiwan a *full* state gives undue weight to the couple of countries that do.

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

Also the sky is blue in Taiwan, so we should write that. Ythlev (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
That belongs in Climate in Taiwan; but the point is your point is moot b.c the sky is blue everywhere, but not all countries are disputed. Augend (drop a line) 16:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Again, there’s no such thing as a “disputed state” because the criteria of statehood are objective and not subjective; whether someone refuses to acknowledge their objective fulfilment is immaterial. The fact that editors on the Kosovo page decided to invent a pseudolegal term is beside the point: the word is an oxymoron and in any case decisions on unrelated articles are not binding on other articles. Île flottante (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
It isn't a pseudolegal term, and Wikipedia is not a collection of legal materials. While it isn't binding, calling Taiwan a full state gives undue weight to the 14 nations that do, and calling the PRC a country with limited recognition gives undue weight, again, to this elite class of fourteen nations. Augend (drop a line) 16:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thats not what undue weight is. On the semantic point Île flottante is right, the term of art here is disputed territory. There is no such thing as a “disputed state” and if you don’t believe me try googling it. Your sarcastic reference to those countries as an elite class when you clearly believe anything but is uncalled for. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
That is exactly what undue weight is. We completely and utterly ignore the countries that only recognize China here, advocating for the 14 countries that recognize Taiwan by pushing their point that "ROC is a fully sovereign state and the only legal administrator of China" - this is not in any way neutral. Using the term disputed incorporates the standpoint of the 100+ nations that don't recognize the ROC. You here are advocating for a biased standpoint and refuse to admit that the ROC is disputed territory, which it is. Augend (drop a line) 18:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Its territory being disputed has nothing to with whether or not its a country or a state (polity). Also just FYI I don’t think anybody here is arguing that "ROC is a fully sovereign state and the only legal administrator of China.” What gave you that idea? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Alright, I agree, disputed state isn’t the right wording here. However, we should change it to “partially-recognized” state as a majority of countries do not recognize it. sam1370 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I’m not doing that. What gave you that impression? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah you are, in the opening section calling it a state implies it is one like the United States when clearly there's less recognition here... also look at the Kosovo example Augend (drop a line) 21:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually it does not imply that at all. It is why "sovereign state" was removed from the article in place of "state". The United States is a sovereign state and Taiwan is not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

@Ythlev: I'm sorry, I cite the foreign affairs ministries of 170 countries versus 14. Augend (drop a line) 15:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Those are primary sources (many of them unreliable), and you haven't actually cited them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ythlev (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd rather use common sense and place greatest weight and reliability on the foreign affairs ministry of a state than secondary sources when looking for the official positions of nations in a dispute. Wikipedia's job is to make what is obviously skewed in one direction or another into a neutral interpretation (i.e. China is a pure idiot --Taiwan Foreign Affairs Ministry ---> "Taiwan is heavily opposed to China's influence"), etc etc. Augend (drop a line) 06:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Well that is not how Wikipedia works. Take your common sense elsewhere. Ythlev (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ythlev: I still don't understand your argument here. In the article as it currently stands, we are not mentioning the important detail that Taiwan is only partially recognized. I don't see why we shouldn't do so. Kosovo does it, so why shouldn't we? I understand that WP:WEIGHT doesn't really apply here, as that more has to do with points of view on a subject than actual facts, but the point still stands that this is an important detail that we're leaving out. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands certainly mentions it, we give it a whole paragraph in the lead. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: True. However, the detail is sufficiently important for it to be in the first sentence IMO. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 04:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Even if one of those islands was the national capital it still wouldn’t be sufficiently important to be in the first sentence. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps. It's really a matter of opinion. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 20:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
*Perhaps off-topic but relevant, some arguments here seemed to have been copy-pasted from global times. Everyone knows that the one-China policy is just a measure to keep the status quo, nothing more nothing less. Therefore to use this argument here, shows some COI. Hence, I think its good that the article is locked for now and that consensus is being sought, but with the important note that one-comment accounts are being investigated for their COI. Kenji1987 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Taiwan, "country" or "state"Edit

Numeric consensus is fairly clear. I won't claim I have an exact count, but there are about 33 in favor of "country", about 10 in favor of "state", and about 5 or so in favor of some variation of state. There were a number of other opinions and ideas, but only "island nation" gained any significant support. So "country" has numeric consensus.

As far as strength of arguments go, the arguments were extremely varied and challenging to weigh. The basic arguments come down to "what is commonly used" and "what is the most accurate". We have agreement that most nations don't recognize Taiwan as an independent country, and people pointing that out tended to use that as an argument for "state". While there is some dispute, it seems that most of the media refers to Taiwan as a country and not a state, e.g. [15] and we have no real dispute about if Taiwan is de facto a country (has an army, currency, navy, passport, internet TLD, telephone country code, etc.) There were also concerns about what is most clear to our readers. People raising that issue generally felt country would be more clear to the US audience.

Taking all of that into account, I don't see the strength of argument in favor of "state" being strong enough to overcome the numeric consensus (in fact I'd say country has a stronger argument). As such, I'm closing this RfC as finding consensus that it is best to refer to Taiwan as a "country" rather than as a "state". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talkcontribs) 21:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

  • Comment It could be either, depending on which definition is used. Some qualification is required however, since its legitimacy is disputed. As with the articles on Northern Cyprus and Republic of Artsakh, I think that we should say de facto state. TFD (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    Those two articles actually make rather different statements while using similar language, one says "de facto sovereign state” and the other says "breakaway de facto state.” We could theoretically describe Taiwan as the first but not the second as they aren’t breakaway. Taiwan is also on a different level size and power wise than those guys, its 100x bigger than N. Cyprus or Artsakh as well as being much older and more widely recognized. A better comparison is North Korea (I know that sounds weird but they have near identical populations, inhabit the same region of the world, are the subject of a national unification movement, and are both pariah states). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    Taiwan has a functional unicameral parliament, defined borders, immigration and customs control, an economy on par with other OECD nations, universal healthcare (which the USA doesn't even have), its own currency, its own modern army, its own modern navy, its own modern air force, a former nuclear weapons program, its own passport, its own internet TLD and telephone country code, its own postal service. These are many things that actual "disputed states" like the State of Palestine, Northern Cyprus and Donetsk People's Republic are lacking in some combination or another. We really need to stop pretending on Wikipedia that a country like Taiwan is somehow equivalent to actual disputed states. Taiwan is able exert much more economic, military and political force than Palestine can ever dream of as of this current day. Like you said, a much better comparison would be to North Korea. --benlisquareTCE 08:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    Taiwan’s passport is also more powerful than the PRC’s [16]... Taiwan’s passport allows visa free travel to 134 nations while China’s only allows visa free travel to 80. Kind of throws a wrench in the whole “93% of the world doesn't recognize the existence of Taiwan as a country” thing for all practical purposes. Got to say the level of genuine ignorance about Taiwan is mind-blowing sometimes. For reference North Korea’s passport offers visa free access to 49 countries. Lol just read your own spiel about passports, sorry for the redundancy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    Not going to happen. Ythlev (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, given that neither of those words has a single agreed upon meaning this seems like a exercise in futility... And I say that as someone with an IR degree. In certain contexts Taiwan could be both of those or neither of them, it all comes down to framing and which Polis-Sci theorists we’re going to choose to be our “wikipedia official” theorists which to my knowledge is something that has never been done nor can we really do it. Reliable sources call them both a country and a state, sometimes in the same article. Why do you think that Wikipedia will be able to come to a consensus on one of the great IR questions of our time when the real world hasn’t/can’t? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • State - this longstanding consensus driven usage works best. It was Sovereign State at times before but the term "state" was determined to best fit the situation. Country means different things in other English speaking areas of the world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    I don't see where there is consensus on the word "state" over "country", I see edit wars in the history tab. What is the definition of "country" that is used in other English speaking parts of the world? User:Stephen Balaban 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    It's happened several times. One such discussion that ended in state is here. There are far too many problems with the word country have multiple meanings in English. The last several discussions have led to the most stable first sentence it has ever had. Non-capitalized "state" with no modifiers to cause even more problems. Why would anyone want to open up the silly can of worms when we've had pretty good stability for so long? There will always be those who disagree strongly one way or the other but "state" has worked as a compromise pretty darned well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    Just because we've had relative stability doesn't mean we should perpetually kick the can down the road to visit at a later time. This is an open issue that'll require resolution sooner or later; why not start now? It's been eight years since the 2012 article move, we've already had enough time to let the dust settle. --benlisquareTCE 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
    It's not kicking the can down the road. There are reasons why some want "sovereign state" some want "State" some want "state" and some want "country." When it was looked at in the past the best choice on balance, on stability, on compromise, on dictionary meaning, and on English usage in all English speaking nations, was to use "state." That is why it has been stable for so long... most readers and editors find it their first or second choice and not their last choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, feel free to add to this list of reliable sources that refer to Taiwan as a "country" and a list of reliable sources that refer to Taiwan as a "state". It seems like "state" is a word that is rarely ever used to refer to Taiwan. The divide certainly seems to fall on the PRC POV = "not a country / province / part of PRC" and the ROC POV = "independent country / sovereign state / independent state / not part of PRC". Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state and is widely referred to as a country by many reputable sources. There is not going to be unanimous consensus on this because of the inherent politics involved but I think it's confusing for Wikipedia readers for editors to decide to refer to Taiwan as a "state" and then be forced to refer to all other countries as "states" to maintain internal consistency within the article and project. Nobody refers to PRC as a state, why does this article? User:Stephen Balaban 20:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    Source List Tag [DD9GA];
    Taiwan referred to as "country": [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]
    Taiwan referred to as "state”: [38]
    Taiwan referred to both as "country" and "state":
    Taiwan referred to as "independent country", "independent state", or "sovereign state": [39]
    Taiwan referred to as "not a state": [40]
    Taiwan referred to as "not a country" and "sovereign country" in the same article: [41]
    Taiwan referred to as neither "country" or "state" but as “self-ruled”:[42][43][44]
    Just “Taiwan":[45][46][47][48][49][50][51]
    Taiwan referred to as an “island” (outside of the explicitly geographical sense):[52][53][54][55]
    Taiwan referred to as a “nation" or "island nation": [56][57]
    Taiwan referred to as an “independent republic":[58]
  • de facto state per what TDF said. The sovereignty of Taiwan is disputed by 93% of the world U.N. countries.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
UN countries are not WP:RS though, for our purposes they’re irrelevant. TBH I thought there wouldn't be as clear a media consensus as there does actually appear to be consensus among WP:RS to call them “country." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The argument that "the sovereignty of Taiwan is disputed by 93% of the world U.N. countries" is extremely weak, because it oversimplifies international politics and ignores many important intricacies that exist beneath the surface.

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

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

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

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

  • State. I mean, they're really the same thing, but state sounds more academic. Ythlev (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yet nobody in academia refers to Taiwan as a state they refer to it as a country: can you point to any sources reliable or encyclopedic that do not refer to Taiwan as a country? User:Stephen Balaban 23:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I meant the word. And yes there are. Check out the article. Ythlev (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country. Every available source refers to Taiwan as a country. Yes it’s disputed by PRC. Yes, PRC has a position in the UN Security Council. But Wikipedia articles should have NPOV and be in line with reliable sources in how it refers to political entities. User:Stephen Balaban 23:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country as a first choice, sovereign state (and not merely "state") as a second backdrop. While I understand the original intentions of the editors establishing consensus back in 2012 of using "state" as a concise and unbiased way to refer to a sovereign state polity (and they're not wrong, by the way), the reality of the situation is that the majority of English-speaking readers without technical background knowledge often confuse the two concepts of a state as a polity (i.e. France, Germany, Republic of Korea), and a state as an administrative subdivision (i.e. Missouri, Queensland, Arunachal Pradesh). This is evident by the numerous talk page threads raised between 2012 and 2018 by confused editors asking why Taiwan is a "state" like California or New York. Switching to the phrasing of "country", or making the phrasing more precise by including "sovereign", would undoubtedly alleviate this confusion amongst readers. While semantically there is a slight technical difference between the concepts of country, nation and sovereign state, again, in reality, the majority of laypersons use these three terms interchangeably, and this is demonstrated by third-party reliable sources such as CNN, BBC and Reuters who also use these three terms interchangeably. --benlisquareTCE 06:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country. Most reliable sources use it, and it’s widely understood by the general public who are, after all, our primary target audience. Phlar (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country. Reasoning per Benlisquare and Phlar. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country. Earlier I didn't think that there would be a clear consensus in WP:RS usage and we would have to get nitty gritty with theorists and dueling papers. I was wrong, there is clear consensus among WP:RS to call Taiwan a country. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • de facto state or de facto sovereign state, followed by state. None of the sources under Taiwan referred to as a "country" above are considered scholarly sources that would meet similar criteria that exist for WP:MEDRS. Even the "layperson" BBC cited above opens with China sees Taiwan as a breakaway province that will eventually be part of the country again, but many Taiwanese want a separate nation.. The CNBC source above also only mentions "country" in a passing quotation or in the context of the ROC, e.g. President Tsai Ing-wen says they are already an independent country called the Republic of China, its official name. The Diplomat also notes that Tsai and other officials also make that distinction. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@CaradhrasAiguo: when you find a source in the wrong category don’t delete it, move it to the appropriate category. Deleting it outright violates talk page etiquette. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS exists because there has been over 15 years worth of collaboration, discussion, and consensus building on Wikipedia amongst editors specialising in medical-related topics, which has slowly built up what we see as the resulting guideline today. A comparison with WP:MEDRS is a false equivalence because an analogue for international relations articles does not exist. If you feel that a WP:MEDRS equivalent set of guidelines is required for the topic of international relations on Wikipedia, consider starting off community-wide discussions to establish consensus on how the guideline should be written. Otherwise, what you're suggesting isn't actually held up by the community of contributors in the same manner WP:MEDRS is. Based on current precedent, the sources you have mentioned above fall within the green category on WP:RSP, meaning that unless there are unambiguous factual inaccuracies in those references, their use doesn't fall outside of WP:RS policy. --benlisquareTCE 00:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Taiwan vs. Republic of China It's worth noting that Taiwan, according to its constitution, is a province of China and it has not declared independence. It's government was the remnant of the government of the Republic of China which claimed mainland China. So there is no source that Taiwan is a de jure state. TFD (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, you could say that that constitution is the source for its statehood, but that the common name for the state has changed in response to the reduction in effective territory. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Why does a constitution written by a bunch of Mainland Chinese men (not Taiwanese) on the mainland of China in 1947 matter, and how does this constitution represent reality? What about the 1991 and 2005 amendments to the constitution which de facto recognise "Taiwan" (in legalese designated as the "Free area of the Republic of China") as a distinct political entity to the mainland? What about the ROC President's numerous and repeated remarks since 2016 that her administration considers the ROC/Taiwan to be "already an independent country" to China, and therefore does not need to "declare independence"? Why does Taiwan need to declare independence from the PRC (established in 1949) when the PRC has never been to Taiwan (brief United States occupation, followed by ROC administration commencing on October 25, 1945)?

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

One additional thing I should mention: You know that 1947 constitution you're talking about? Did you know that it claims Mongolia as the de jure territory of Taiwan? In reality, though, Taiwan has de facto officially recognised Mongolia as a real country in 2002 under the administration of president Chen Shui-bian. Taiwan and Mongolia now officially have healthy and normal country-to-country relations, with free flow of tourists and students, alongside plenty of economic trade, and the ROC constitution has still not been amended to reflect this fact (because doing so would mean that China is legally obligated to invade). Why was establishing diplomatic relations with Mongolia not so difficult, unlike mainland China? It's because Mongolia doesn't have 2,500 short range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan, unlike a certain other country. --benlisquareTCE 15:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't have explained it better. The government of Taiwan considers itself to be part of the country of China, not a country in itself. China and every other country in the world also recognize Taiwan as a province of China. So it is de jure part of China and de facto a self-governing state. The OR about the Montevideo Convention should be ignored because it is only one of the theories of statehood and is a guideline to help experts determine what is a state but is not definitive. It was an agreement between the U.S. and Latin American states in the 1930s, not a UN convention. TFD (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
If you think benlisquare’s comment here supports your position you don’t undsertand what they said. Can you also chill with the massive unsupported statements like "The government of Taiwan considers itself to be part of the country of China, not a country in itself.” while complaining about OR? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The government of Taiwan considers itself to be part of the country of China, not a country in itself. - Officially, both in practice and in policy, not since 2016 when the administration of president Tsai Ing-wen made it the official government stance to reject the 1992 Consensus, as I've mentioned. Even prior to that, Taiwan has ceased to actively pursue its territorial claims to mainland China and Mongolia during the presidential administration of Lee Teng-hui, they just didn't make it an official stance at the time. The Sinophilic old guard from the generation of Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo with their rosy dreams of militarily retaking mainland China by force? They're either all dead, or 80 year old men withering away in nursing homes. They do not represent the present, nor the future, of Taiwan. I'm not sure how you've managed to read between my lines to come to that conclusion. --benlisquareTCE 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not OR, see the article in The Atlantic: "The ROC constitution, meanwhile, still claims Taiwan, China, Mongolia, and the entire South China Sea as its territory."[59] Whether or not the current government holds that position, it has been unable or unwilling to change the law, hence use of the term de jure, which is Latin for by law. On the other hand, de facto means "in fact:" "practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws." TFD (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Law =/= Constitution, but I'l focus on the argument not the errors. Can you tell me why ROC/Taiwan hasn't changed their constitution? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
If you're saying disequals constitution, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. TFD (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Does not equal, not “disequals” which is not a word in the english language. Answer the question. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There's no need to ask rhetorical questions, this is not a debating club. If you want to make a point about why the Republic of China has not changed its constitution, just say it and what relevance it has to whatever point you are trying to make. TFD (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Healthy debate/discussion is important to establishing consensus, as we already appear to have done so I will digress. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Even whether the constitution claims authority over all of China is under dispute. The constitution merely says the territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries. Some legislators argued that mainland China is not included in the "existing national boundaries" mentioned in the constitution, and asked the Judicial Yuan, who has legal power to interpret the Constitution, to clarify this issue. The judical yuan denied to interpret what "existing national boundaries" include, saying this is a significant political question and beyond the reach of judicial review. The dispute has not yet been resolved since then.[60]--Visaliaw (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment common name is a title policy. It has nothing to do with the content. And as CaradhrasAiguo pointed out above, sources don't call it a country. And even as a title, the COMMONNAME says Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered.
Saying it is a country is saying that it is a de jure state.
Taiwan is only considered as a sovereign state by 13 countries. The rest of the world doesn't recognize Taiwan's sovereignty. That's 93% of the world. It is not a member of the U.N.. Taiwan is a de facto state not a de jure state.[61] It's status is worse than Kosovo. We should provide accurate information. The common name argument is irrelevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
"Saying it is a country is saying that it is a de jure state." Really? I bet a lot of people in Scotland would be glad to hear that, as Scotland is often called a country but recently failed to become a sovereign state of its own. --Khajidha (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
That's another definition. Scotland has a distinct ethnicity and was a sovereign state before it was merged with England. Taiwan was a province of China. No one referred to West Berlin as a country when it was a separate political unit not part of either of the two Germanies. TFD (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
My point still stands. You cannot make an unequivocal statement that "country" means something if there are cases where it explicitly doesn't mean that. The fact that Taiwan's history is different from Scotland's is not relevant to the point. West Berlin is even less relevant. --Khajidha (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan was a part of the Japanese Empire not a province of China before they were merged with the ROC against the will of the inhabitants at the end of WWII. Scotland also doesn't have a distinct ethnicity any more than Taiwan does, both are primarily inhabited by people who do not share the majority of their heritage with the people who inhabited their lands 2,000 years before them. Also just FYI the merger of Scotland and England happened in 1707 (and they were ruled by the English from 1603)... So Scotland was a sovereign state (even though the definition didnt exist and cant really be applied in hindsight) 400+ years ago, not so sure what your point is. You seem to be making a lot of historical and logical errors in your arguments. Also just FYI West Berlin was administered both formally and informally by West Germany and was for legal purposes considered part of West Germany. I know of no such power who effects similar administration of Taiwan except the Taiwanese Government. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
[Very off topic, but the Scots were not ruled by the English from 1603. The Scottish King inherited the English throne in 1603, but the states remained separate (very, they fought wars even) until 1707.] Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
You’re right, I should have said Scottish sovereignty became truly disputed in 1603. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Also FYI the Japanese were the first to control the entire island of Taiwan, none of the previous colonial or indigenous powers had ever controlled the entirety (or even the majority) of the island before the Japanese. Most of Taiwan by area was controlled by Taiwanese indigenous peoples up until about 1900, so they beat the Scots in the global game of “resist the foreign invaders" by a full 300 years. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack, Taiwan became a province (de jure and de facto) of the Republic of China upon its annexation and is considered a province under the constitution of the republic. However, the government of the Republic of China lost control of the mainland and in 1971, the United Nations recognized the Peoples's Republic of China as the sole national government of mainland China and Taiwan. So neither the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China, the local government of Taiwan, or the countries that recognize one or the other of the competing claims consider it to be a sovereign state. TFD (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
"So neither the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China, the local government of Taiwan, or the countries that recognize one or the other of the competing claims consider it to be a sovereign state." This bears a distinct resemblance to the fecal matter of an adult male bovine. It is splitting hairs over the common name. The constitution of the Republic of China declares that it is a sovereign state. Those countries that recognize the ROC consider it a sovereign state. The fact that said state is commonly called Taiwan instead of China is irrelevant to that fact. --Khajidha (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I respect your right to make any argument you want but thats just not true. I’m particularly confused by your assertion that the Republic of China and the "local government of Taiwan” are currently separate entities which agree that Taiwan is not a sovereign state. Can you explain whats leads you to believe this? Also just FYI any argument from the ROC constitution is a nonstarter for you, if it has a valid constitution its a state and a country and if its not either of those it doesn't have a valid constitution so its irrelevant. Pick one, you’re doing whatever is most convenient for your argument, not what is logically consistent. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack, Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were two different things. The government of the Republic of China claims authority over all of China but de facto exercises local control over Taiwan only. Frank Chiang, who is an expert in U.S. - Taiwan - China relations, phrases it better: "Taiwan is not a state because there is no government constituting the government of the state of Taiwan. Although there is a governing authority in Taiwan -- the ROC government -- it is a government of China in exile." ("Sadly, Taiwan is still not a state" Taipei Times, 2005). TFD (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Thats from a *2005* Taipei Times *editorial.* Here is an equally authoritative opinion (that of a senior Taiwanese legislator) found in an article published in the Taiwan News yesterday: "Taiwan acknowledges the existence of the People’s Republic of China and its sovereignty over the areas it controls, while the Taiwanese government has authority over its main island and Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, as well as their adjacent territorial waters and airspace.” Taiwan does not appear to lay claim to the entirety of China anymore. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: This RFC discussion has nothing to do with the title of the article, it is about whether the wording of the lead paragraph should use the term "state" or "country" to describe the political entity; discussion regarding whether Taiwan or Republic of China is the WP:COMMONNAME is off-topic. Nobody here has even mentioned the WP:COMMONNAME policy until you brought it up. If you have objections to the name of the article being Taiwan, consider raising a separate WP:RM discussion to Republic of China; otherwise, you are merely detracting from the discussion. --benlisquareTCE 15:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, the state/country/island/entity/blob/sweet potato’s common name was settled more than a decade ago as Taiwan and there still appears to be no contest[62]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
A little late, but while re-reading older discussion, this particular claim caught my eye: It's status is worse than Kosovo. This dubious claim couldn't be any further from the truth; Kosovo passport holders have visa-free access to 41 countries, which is even less than Chinese (PRC) passport holders, let alone Taiwan; there are a significant number of sub-Saharan African nations with more travel rights bestowed upon their citizens compared to Kosovo. Again, comparing the two is the utter epitome of apple/orange comparisons, the claim simply doesn't make sense. --benlisquareTCE 17:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - One of the reasons in past discussions and RfCs that it was settled on the now long-standing "state" was because of the various definitions among English speaking nations. We have talked about states, States, sovereign states, nations, nation-states, countries, etc. Most had problems fitting in the Taiwan situation.
    With a sovereign state we needed a state with its own institutions and populations that has a permanent population, territory, and government. It needs an internationally recognized government that provides public services and police power and has the right to make treaties, wage war, and take other actions on behalf of its people. No other state should have power over the country's territory.
    With a nation we needed a large group of people who inhabit a specific territory and are connected by history, culture, or another common items. Places like Sicily, Catalonia, and Quebec.
    With a nation-state we had to be show a cultural group (a nation) that is also a state or a sovereign state. Iceland or Japan.
    To be a state it needed to be a territory with its own institutions and populations. Greenland, England. It could also be geographic sections of sovereign states, like California or Tasmania.
    Country has all kinds of meanings from a state, a sovereign state, or nation-state. Usually it's a sovereign state but you also run into places like wine country. The UK uses the term country to define England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
    All of these have some issues with the special case of Taiwan, and no matter what one you chose you'll find unhappy editors bent on removing the term. Viewpoints run deep on this issue. The term state was determined to be the most all-encompassing, safest, term to use that would see the least amount of edit-wars. I do think it achieved that purpose. It can certainly be changed to country but I see it as having nowhere near the stability that "state" has had, especially when places such as the United States look at country=sovereign state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I don’t necessarily agree with your definitions but if you want to use those then Taiwan is a sovereign state, it checks all those boxes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that adding qualifiers like "sovereign state" is a bad idea especially when the sovereignty is in dispute by the PRC. Of course Taiwan is clearly de facto sovereign but that's another story. One important thing to remember is that some of these "unhappy editors" are trying to push a certain POV (whether it's PRC or ROC). I think the main point with opening this RfC is to answer the question: "Why does wikipedia seem to use a different term to describe Taiwan than every other mainstream English-language reliable source?" User:Stephen Balaban 07:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Take no action here. The distinction between a "country" and a "state" which this discussion is trying to clarify is not meaningful to, or is likely to be misunderstood by, many speakers of American English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The same applies to British English. The overlap between the words "country" and "state" is greater than their distinction. We should simply acknowledge that the world is messy and not all territories or regimes fit into simply defined categories. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country or simply state. Adding de facto is an unnecessary and incorrect use of a Latin expression. A state cannot exist de facto because once the factual conditions of statehood are met (population, territory and effective government), it is a de jure state. It would be akin to describing the Sun as being a de facto star: it's just a star. Calls to add de facto reflect a misunderstanding on behalf of many users of what the word state means. Île flottante (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country - Agree with Benlisquare. Country can be applied as a neutral and non-ambiguous word here. Jediting1 (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Summary of Opinions So far I've counted the following opinions: country 7, (state or no action) 2, de facto state 2. Could people in the state / de facto state / sovereign state camps please post reliable sources that refer to Taiwan as a state / de facto state? You can edit the list located at tag [DD9GA]. There are many more reliable sources that use the term country, please add some that refer to it as a state. Stephen Balaban 17:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I suppose you're counting me in the "state or no action" group, but I just can't make sense of what we are disputing here. Is France a country? Yes. Is France a state? Yes. Is France a sovereign state? Yes. So being a state does not preclude being a country, and vice versa. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The discussion isn't aiming to debate what Taiwan is, because that would be an extremely subjective and open-ended question with no real answer. The question being asked is what word should be used within the lead paragraph of this article - "country", "state", or (other); as far as I'm concerned, it's a pretty binary (or ternary) question. We've had eight years to come up with a consensus on what wording to use, and still have not been able to, hence why this discussion is taking place. --benlisquareTCE 04:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
China opposes X Taiwan Opposed Y, so we need Z. Trying to not treat this as my inclination wants to why not "realm"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
China and Taiwan should not determine what words the English language can use. --Khajidha (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the problem is where I come from they are more or less synonymous. So there is not one I have a preference for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • As I said lat time this is just semantics (polite version).Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country. Agree with Benlisquare that this is clearer to readers, and it's a neutral term to use which is backed by a majority of sources. the wub "?!" 15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country. As Benlisquare points out, "state" leads to confusion with the American governmental structure. I do not think the distinction de facto vs de jure is meaningful or helpful here. And it seems to be what the sources call it. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Island country I looked at some other cases to see what they had:
Cuba – country
Cyprus – island country
Ireland – island
New Zealand – sovereign island country
Singapore – sovereign city state and island country
Sri Lanka – island country
United Kingdom – sovereign country
All of these places have a unique history and all were part of some larger polity at some time in their history. While there is no uniform pattern, the word "state" gets almost no usage and the phrase "island country" is most common. Its usage in this case too seems quite reasonable. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson:, just a quick note, you have linked the wrong page for Ireland. That is the page for the entire island called Ireland, and not the page for the country called Ireland. The page for the country is here: Republic of Ireland, where it is described as a country. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country or Island Country I found these the most in the sources I found. There were, of course, sources that listed it as a state of East Asia, however a fair majority of them are either based on, or copied verbatim off of Wikipedia's current definition. —dibbydib boop or snoop 02:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country or sovereign state. It is not a state of a larger country as some like to imply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country. Since 1) this is how other entities (Japan, Mainland China, etc.) are called. Granted, it is a "mostly unrecognized state/country". Note the Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states that is subcategory to both Category:Countries by status and Category:States with limited recognition. Anyway, 2) on official English page/[63], it refers to itself as a "country", but also as a "state" [64]. But count gives only one instance of state as self-reference, compared to 5-6 for country. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country. Strong agreement with Benlisquare's points. NomadicNom (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country or sovereign state because governments aren't RSes. It doesn't matter how many countries officially recognize Taiwan, it matters what the best reliable sources say, and they treat Taiwan as a country or sovereign state. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 00:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • largely unrecognized state - it actually does matter what other states say, in fact for whether or not a state is a state they matter most. A state is a state when other states say it is a state is the most readily understood phrasing I have seen. Would also add claims sovereignty over the territory of the PRC and exercises sovereignty over the island of Taiwan. nableezy - 00:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    The problem is sourcing. Almost all sources use "country." By definition it is simply a state, since country can mean anything in all the different English variations and usually means "sovereign state", but sourcing Taiwan as a "state" is a big problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • country everyone but the PRC and those who feel the need to defer to them seems to consider it a country; they have their reasons, but their reasons are irrelevant to Wikipedia . Taiwan acts as an independent country in all respects, and is referred to by neutral observers as such. DGG ( talk ) 11:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country. Taiwan is a country by any reasonable definition, and reliable sources describe it as such. If the PRC disagree that's their prerogative, but Wikipedia is not bound by their claim. Although other countries have withheld de jure recognition of Taiwan, they've given it de facto recognition by maintaining diplomatic relations, embassies (even if they're called something else), granting it membership (or something equivalent to membership by another name) of international organisations etc. Modest Genius talk 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country Taiwan (ROC) has its own government, currency, passport, military, and economy. It has strong unofficial diplomatic and economic ties with all major countries in the world through de facto embassies (a.k.a. representative offices) and trade. It continues to have formal ties with 15 sovereign states. Unlike Macau or Hong Kong, the Taiwanese government is not under the jurisdiction of the PRC government and freely conducts its own governance of Taiwan. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country It is officially recognized by 15 states, it has its own immigration, currency, identity, democracy, etc. etc. all associated with a nation state, and de-facto it operates as a country. Kenji1987 (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country Despite not being recognized by a majority of other countries, I'd agree with Kenji1987, and numerous others here. Taiwan has all the aspects of a country mentioned above, and should be referred to as such. –NorthwestPassage talk 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • State. While Taiwan looks like a country in all aspects, it is still politically a province of China. Now many people dispute this, so since a state represents a political entity, I believe it is better to refer to Taiwan as a state. This acknowledges the political self-governance of Taiwan while at the same time remains politically correct. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
State is not equal to province. Acknowledging Taiwan as a state is not equal to acknowledging Taiwan as a province of China. An independent nation can be referred to as a state. More appropriately, state is a synonym of government. We sometimes say "Member states of the EU". This doesn't mean England and Germany are provinces of the European Union; rather, this means that England and Germany have their own governments. The same can be applied to Taiwan. As a Chinese, we refer to Guangdong as "Guangdong Province", never as "Guangdong State". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I just realized that a country is largely synonymous with a state: "A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state," (from article on country) and "[state] referring to an organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory." No doubt Taiwan is exhibiting sovereignty over its land; hence it is a state. Is it a country? Disputed. Is it a state (does it have control over its own land)? I find it pretty hard to dispute this statement. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually "country" is largely synonymous with "sovereign state", which Taiwan is not. That has always been the problem with the nomenclature we use here. What is most used in sourcing deviates from the actual definition. Hence the quandary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
No. Scotland is referred to as a country, sometimes even a nation, while not being sovereign. "State", "country", and "nation" are all the same thing, none of which have universal definitions. Ythlev (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, yes. Country gets multiple vague definitions as I had said previously. England, Scotland, and Wales are often called countries in British English. But State, country, and nation are certainly not the same thing at all per standard definitions. But the term country is mostly used to describe a sovereign state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
What are the "standard definitions" exactly? And how is it that English of Britain, where it originated, is not standard? Ythlev (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Some of that was discussed previously at this comment. Why isn't British English used as a definition throughout the world? That's what your asking? I have no idea. If you go by that reasoning Taiwan usually uses American English. In my PolySci classes we had different definitions for state, sovereign state, nation, and country. Country was the most frowned upon because of it's vagueness and many meanings. Sort of like you have turkey vultures, black vultures, and condors, but they also get a commonly used term of buzzards. Country was like buzzards in my classes... used a lot but vague and less precise. Maybe a lot because in British English country gets used for England and Scotland while the sovereign state is the UK. There are many complexities is usage even within the same geographical area, and from country to country it's even worse. It doesn't bother me one bit if this article changes from state to country, nation, or even sovereign state since Wikipedia works in mysterious consensus ways. I was only pointing out that sources and definitions differ in this case, and that I think "state" fits Taiwan best and has been the most stable term used on Wikipedia. Other articles will change if we change the terminology here. That's fine, but it's why I listed this rfc at Wikipedia centralized discussion so we could get a better amalgam of eyes on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Country was like buzzards in my classes... used a lot but vague and less precise. This contradicts what you said that "country" is largely synonymous with "sovereign state". If we are going with common usage, the word "state" usually refers to a US state. I agree that we should "state", but I think your reasoning is a bit weird. Ythlev (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Not quite as i was summarizing a previous discussion. In class it was frowned upon because of it's vagueness and buzzard-like equivalence. But when it is used in the context of what is likely to happen here, it far and away tends to be interpreted as "Sovereign State" rather than just "state." It is why I thought it would create more problems in maintaining the article from vandalism even though it is more readily sourcable. In the US, state more readily means a US state. Not in the rest of the English speaking world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion Taiwan isn't a nation by any reasonable standard. Hence a country is practically equal to a state, but calling it a country generates more controversy. State is the less controversial synonym for country. IMO this is not a political discussion; we are not arguing country vs. province. A state is very similar to a country in terms of definition, but the word state is more neutral in this respect. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 04:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Based on pre-existing precedent on Wikipedia, we refer to Israel, Singapore, North Korea, South Korea, United Kingdom and South Sudan as countries within the lead paragraph rather than states; all of these meet your usual definitions of states. To make Taiwan the exception would be a double standard, and thus even more of a WP:NPOV violation. The argument that using state would be more neutral becomes a moot point unless there is a consensus-based Wikipedia-wide shift to change the wording of every single sovereign state article's lead paragraph from "country" to "state". Furthermore, if you are concerned about neutrality in regards to the One China issue, then would you be in favour of changing the lead paragraph of China to use "state" instead of "country"? Why is the People's Republic of China allowed to be called a country, instead of a state? --benlisquareTCE 05:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Singapore, UK, North/South Korea's independence is universally accepted. However, Taiwan independence is not universally accepted, Even among the Taiwanese, from last year's election over 40% Taiwanese voted for Han Kuo-Yu, opponents of the independence movement. There is little global consensus over whether Taiwan can be considered a country, but I guess by nearly all standards Taiwan can always be called a state. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 05:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
If there is "little global consensus over whether Taiwan can be considered a country", then can you explain why the overwhelming majority of English-language news media publications refer to Taiwan as a country, and not as a state? --benlisquareTCE 06:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Because "country" is plain English and a more common word whereas "state" is more academic. I think using the academic word encourages readers to learn more about the topic. Ythlev (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) putting English aside, how many of these sources come from America or the EU? English language speakers account for just about a billion people, barely more than Chinese speakers. America and many EU countries (esp. America from 2016 up till the present) are biased against China, and hence many of these sources bias against the PRC. The majority of countries supporting PRC don't speak English (though not necessarily Chinese). Wikipedia wants a worldwide view of subjects, hence articles on non-English-speaking countries exist and quote non-English sources. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with individual editors' perceptions of media bias; Wikipedia cares about what meets Wikipedia policy. Based on WP:RSP, these news sources are not considered biased or unreliable. If you are opposed to this community decision, consider starting a new discussion at WP:PUMP and get the Wikipedia community onboard with labeling the BBC, Reuters, etc. as unreliable sources.

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

No, I'm not saying BBC is unreliable. What I'm saying is that not every reliable source agrees with each other on such contentious issues. Democrat sources might say that Trump made a bad move in a policy, and a Republican source mentioning the same policy might highly praise it. They can both be considered RSs, yet we must exercise caution. I'll continue my reply soon. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Cont: This has departed from its original language nomenclature problem into a political problem. And I'm pretty sure English isn't the only language that discerns between "country" and "state". My conclusion is, still a good number of people consider Taiwan (ROC) as under China, and do not consider Taiwan a country. It is this subtle difference between "country" (politically incorrect) and "state" (politically better) that marks the difference, and I am going with the latter. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
over 40% Taiwanese voted for Han Kuo-Yu, opponents of the independence movement - this is a logical fallacy based upon false equivalence, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the democratic process. Participants of elections are not single-issue voters, and there are many reasons why someone might vote for a KMT candidate that are unrelated to the issue of Chinese reunification; Christian groups opposed to same-sex marriage traditionally vote KMT; historically KMT governments have provided more social services for Taiwanese aborigines, and therefore they are more likely to vote for KMT candidates; those who oppose closer economic ties with Japan vote KMT rather than DPP; those opposed to Hokkien language education and funding Hokkien public broadcasting vote KMT. Equating Han Kuo-yu voters with opponents of Taiwanese nationhood and/or supporters of Chinese reunification is a fallacy of the undistributed middle. Furthermore, the democratic process does not demand 100% of the population agreeing on every single public policy; only 51% is required for a simple majority. Demanding that the entire population be onboard with policy is impractical and silly, lawmakers would never ever get any bills passed. --benlisquareTCE 06:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Benlisquare "According to opinion poll conducted in Taiwan by Mainland Affairs Council in 2019, 27.7% of respondents supported Taiwan's independence: 21.7% said that status quo has to be maintained for now but Taiwan should become independent in the future, while 6% said that independence must be declared as soon as possible. 31% respondents supported the current situation as it is, and 10.3% agreed to unification with the mainland with 1.4% saying that it should happen as soon as possible.[37]" from Taiwan independence. This shows that 33.7% support Taiwan independence now while 31+10.3+1.4=42.7% doesn't support Taiwan independence, hence the lack of consensus among the Taiwanese to declare independence. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
By claiming that the 31% of status quo adherents who favour the current situation of de facto independence under the name ROC without formally declaring a Republic of Taiwan as part of the "anti-independence" camp, you're essentially poisoning the well here. A significant portion of the population opposes closer relations with mainland China, however do not wish to amend the constitution to formally declare the name of the nation as "Republic of Taiwan" because they do not wish to see war as a consequence of the 2005 anti-secession law of the PRC. Currently, opinion polls show that approval rates for the KMT are currently at 9 percent, while Tsai Ing-wen's approval rate sits at 75 percent. --benlisquareTCE 07:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
As long as they don't want Taiwan to become a country, they can be considered "anti-independence". The status quo is that Taiwan is a state and not a country. The wish for Taiwan to reunite with China (11%) is equivalent to seeing Taiwan as a province of China. I guess a province, under the definitions, is much closer to "state" than to "country". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I guess ultimately at this point, we may as well agree to disagree. My worldview clearly doesn't match yours, and your view of the world is significantly different to mine. I certainly disagree with your statement that The status quo is that Taiwan is a state and not a country, given that Taiwan demonstrates more characteristic hallmarks of a country than a place like Serbia, and that keeping the Taiwan article in line with that of other countries both meets with Wikipedia's policies, and provides a better understanding for the majority of layperson readers who use Wikipedia. You are certainly entitled to maintain your position, however I definitely won't be changing mine. --benlisquareTCE 08:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Even now Taiwan has not declared official independence. While the DPL is pushing for independence, and leaders are pushing to single out Taiwan from China, even the DPL has not declared Taiwan to be independent from China. Yes, the US is blowing Taiwan independence all over the place, signing regulations attempting to establish Taiwan and even HK as independent countries. The UN deemed the PRC to be the "sole legitimate government of China", and hence the UN considered that the PRC had, in some sense, a higher status than the ROC. Talking about WP:NPOV, to put it shortly there is no NPOV in politics. Simply speaking, I can't see a way to neutrally report global politics (with all the US drama), hence this discussion. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 06:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
"We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state, we are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan." - Tsai Ing-wen, January 2020. Why does a country formed in 1912 need to declare independence from a country formed in 1949? Also, you do have URLs to any sources which prove that the United States is attempting to push for Hong Kong's independence? --benlisquareTCE 06:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Why does a country formed in 1912 need to declare independence from a country formed in 1949? – United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 stipulates that the PRC is the sole legitimate gov't of China, which was an internatianal agreement which Taiwan is trying to reverse. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:38, 13 May 2020
The United Nations is not an authoritative power. If the UN wishes to further the fantasy that a PRC citizen can vote in ROC elections, be protected by ROC soldiers, and be treated by the ROC healthcare system, and that an ROC citizen can vote in PRC elections, be protected by PRC soldiers, and buy real estate property within PRC cities, then that's the UN's own perogative. --benlisquareTCE 09:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

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

Given that "state" is a less controversial word - "State" is not less controversial, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this 600 kilobyte discussion on Wikipedia.
Right now, countries are pushing hard to politically make Taiwan more independent from China - This is your own personal fantasy, the future of Taiwan lies upon the decisions of the Taiwanese people, and the Taiwanese people only. The evil American empire isn't pointing a gun to Taiwan and forcing them to become independent.
Only 15 countries, for now, recognise Taiwan as an independent country. - Only 15 countries, for now, do not pretend that Taiwan is not a de facto country, while continuing to sell Taiwan billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks and missiles. --benlisquareTCE 09:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
For one, "state" is less controversial when compared to "country". The PRC would be more comfortable with Taiwan being called a "state" than a "country" since "country" = "sovereign state" (mentioned above). Taiwan fulfills the definition of a "state"; that is pretty obvious. Sovereignty, on the other hand, is disputed.
Only 15 countries, for now, do not pretend that Taiwan is not a de facto country, while continuing to sell Taiwan billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks and missiles. -- from the article Foreign relations of Taiwan, it can be seen that there are still >100 countries that do not maintain relations with Taiwan at all. Among the ~100 countries that maintain relationships with Taiwan while still maintaining "unofficial diplomatic relations" like the US, many of them don't do this much as one would to a real (undisputed) nation. Besides, HK and Macau also have foreign diplomatic relations. That doesn't make HK and Macau independent from China. The China-HK-Macau-Taiwan system (兩岸四地) should be treated with caution, and (kind of) as a special case.
I may have been wrong with "politically make Taiwan more independent from China", but nevertheless Taiwan has not declared independence and most nations don't consider Taiwan to be sufficiently independent from China to be called a "country". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The PRC would be more comfortable with Taiwan being called a "state" than a "country" - Wikipedia does not need to concern itself with what the PRC is comfortable with because Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia only needs to concern itself with United States copyright laws, obscenity laws, libel laws, and non-profit fundraising laws, because the Wikimedia Foundation servers are located in Florida.
That doesn't make HK and Macau independent from China. - Nobody has ever disputed the PRC's sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macau. Every single country on earth recognises that Hong Kong and Macau are indisputable parts of China. This is yet another false equivalence.
most nations don't consider Taiwan to be sufficiently independent from China - What is your personal threshold for "sufficiently independent"? All ROC citizens have free healthcare (while PRC citizens living in the PRC have to pay money, and might get partially subsidised by their employer through the 社會醫療保險卡 system), all ROC citizens are entitled to own land (while PRC citizens can only "borrow" land from the government, and can be forced to relinquish at any time), all ROC citizens have visa-free entry into the majority of OECD nations (while PRC citizens need to be slowly and tediously vetted). Does the ROC Air Force need to drop a nuclear bomb on Beijing in order to demonstrate its sufficiency in its self-governance? --benlisquareTCE 09:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
okay, I get your point -- my 1st statement wasn't worded well (ignore that statement). I'm not saying Taiwan is a province of China. I'm saying that yes, Taiwan's government and systems resemble a country more than a dependent province. But at the same time, Taiwan is technically not a country. The closest description to "country" that is politically accurate is "state", and that's what I'm going with. Taiwan is like a country in every respect except for that international argument in 1971 that ruled out Taiwan as an independent country. Therefore, Taiwan cannot be accurately called a country. However, Taiwan can be called a state and since state ≈ country, I'm going with the word "state". Until that agreement is overturned, or Taiwan gains the international recognition of more nations, it's still not a country but a near-country, hence the word "state". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
anyway, I agree that there can never be a consensus on such political issues. We may have to stay with the ideology of "agree to disagree", and there simply cannot be any agreement. Have a good time, and I wish you all the best! From Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country. Despite all the debate over Taiwan's "official" status, its de facto if not declared status is a sovereign and independent nation, both economically as well as politically. It is also generally treated as such even by nations which do not recognize it diplomatically. It would be absurd to classify Taiwan, embraced as a part of the Free World, along with a formerly independent state and province of PRC such as Tibet. World Almanac includes Taiwan's flag and an entry in its "Nations of the World" section. Any debate over its status centers around deference to the belligerent PRC, whose authority over Taiwan is only theoretical and imaginary, and whose hostile rule over mainland China has been illegally usurped. It does no one any favors to use language or terms that kowtow to that. - JGabbard (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree to the wording de facto country, as it conveys the meaning of “almost, not exactly”. If state is not okay “de facto country” is my option no. 2. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 14:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It is clear that this discussion's iutcone can never satisfy more than 70% of the population. This inherently political discussion won't be going anywhere. Just a reminder that let's avoid going too political and avoid losing our cool. Focus on the wording not your political views on Taiwan. Cheers to all, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 12:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you think you could do everyone a favor and summarize your argument? By my count you’ve made four independent and contradictory arguments. I’m also confused about whether or not you think this is a political discussion as you say above "This inherently political discussion won't be going anywhere." but you said earlier that "IMO this is not a political discussion" so I think you need to be a little clearer. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
okay -- I was saying that it should have been a discussion of prose, but the setting makes it tend towards a question of politics. Hence I decided to slap a message telling people to avoid getting way too political. In short, my argument is that Taiwan is not yet a legitimate country. Yes, it looks like one, in every respect, but so far it has not gained international acceptance. Calling it a state is the closest we can get while staying true to that binding agreement and the legal facts (not yet a country), certainly closer than a province. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Who defines what is a "legitimate" country? Seems to me that any country where the inhabitants accept the rule of the government in place is legitimate in the only meaningful way. ---Khajidha (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
"Legitimate" as in the 1971 international ruling that establishes the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. This is a decision that Taiwan has been planning to reverse for the past 10, maybe 20, years. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
No such ruling exists. There is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, but that only states that the PRC is "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations". That is not the same thing. --Khajidha (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No chance as that is not what is being discussed here. The only thing we are concerned with is if we keep "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia" or we change it to "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan Island is a separate subject from Taiwan the political entity which is sometimes referred to as an island, looks like the encarta and Soviet Encyclopedia entries are for the former. Brittanica says “self-governing Island” which is a bit different than just saying island. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
"Taiwan Island" currently redirects to Geography of Taiwan. Which is about the entire country, with (of course) most of the material being about the big island. --Khajidha (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country - All the sources seem to call it a country. This is an issue wrought with NPOV problems, but the answer seems pretty clear from the reliable sources. The correct thing to do is not to skirt the issue by avoiding it (which kind of feels like censorship), which may be what other encyclopedias do (why should we care what the "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" says?). It's a country; let's call it a country. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country per WP:COMMONNAME per sources cited above, also [65] Adoring nanny (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country per the above sources calling it a country and because most readers whould refer to it as a country.BrandonXLF (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am WP:BOLDly closing this subdiscussion, it is unnecessarily providing confusion to new discussion participants, while providing no additional value to the discussion that we otherwise cannot obtain from the main RFC. --benlisquareTCE 09:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reaching Consensus

Please continue to place your comments, arguments, sources, facts, opinions and discussion above in the main RfC section. I would like to open this section below for those that have posted above with something other than country to say whether or not they are comfortable with a country consensus. There is clearly a majority of editors who prefer country and I would like to try and build consensus with those who originally disagree with this. Please only post here if you have already written your comment / suggestion above and the suggestion you made was not country and simply state YES/NO as to whether you are alright with a country consensus. If so, why? If not, why? Template included below:

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Country. Reasoning per Benlisquare and Phlar. comrade waddie96 (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: I have copied this comment from the closed discussion above. --benlisquareTCE 09:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Heh, nevermind, there's also an article by The Manila Times which refers to Taiwan as a country. Seems like only their opinion articles are cancerous. Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Island. Taiwan is an Island (with disputed ownership). The Republic of China is a state (with disputed legitimacy). The problem with this article is that it conflates the two. (Which is especially confusing because the Republic of China claims to be the government of all of China, not just Taiwan.) This article should start with "Taiwan is an island which is de facto governed by the Republic of China". A separate article on the Republic of China should explain that the Republic of China is the de facto government of Taiwan while also claiming to be the de jure government of mainland China. (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • That was how these articles were structured between 2003 and 2012, with the country article located at Republic of China, and the island geography article located at Taiwan. However, there was clear and indisputable community consensus to move the country article to Taiwan following a RM discussion in 2012, and we have been at this situation ever since. The pre-exodus content was split and moved to Republic of China (1912–1949), the post-exodus content was moved to Taiwan, and the geography article was first moved to Taiwan (island), and then later Geography of Taiwan. While it's certainly true that consensus can change, if you take a good read of the community atmosphere on Wikipedia, I seriously doubt that any proposal to move Taiwan back to Republic of China will see any success. Ultimately, the WP:CONSENSUS regarding the article title shows no sign of changing any time soon (especially given recent events), and my suggestion would be to focus on improving article content rather than putting hopes on a new RM that, with absolute certainty, will never happen. --benlisquareTCE 14:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I see. Was the problem that "Republic of China" went against WP:COMMON? If so, I would suggest Taiwan for the article on the disputed island and Taiwan (Republic of China) for the state. (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • While it'd still be factually correct to have an geographic island article called "Taiwan", the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would still be the country/state/government based on usage within third-party literature. --benlisquareTCE 09:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country The above analyses (thanks all) indicate clearly that the preponderance of English-language reliable sources use the term, and the preponderance of non-English reliable sources use thier language's equivalent of country. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country As shown by all the above RSs which suggest that Taiwan is a country as opposed to a state. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country as per the above wall of words. The english language RSs are heavily weighted toward 'country.' Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 13:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • State - Despite the complex and controversial political position of Taiwan, it has limited recognition as a Sovereign state by the international community. The One-China policy complicates this, but the Republic of China/Taiwan is still a soveriegn state, just one with limited international recognition, like Kosovo, Israel or Northern Cyprus.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country - Taiwan is a de facto independent country. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country. Both "country" and "state" would be appropriate descriptors for Taiwan's political status, but if sources prefer the former, we should go with that. I oppose any other option than "country" or "state". feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 05:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country per above. ~ HAL333 13:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country self-determination is a value Wikipedia should hold in cases like these, where a powerful country like China is forcing other countries to treat Taiwan as a province when most of them wouldn't do it if there wasn't retaliation. Wikipedia has no such problem and it's not bound by the One China rule. --MewMeowth (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
MewMeowth, State is not equal to province, see above. Rather, "state" is the closest thing to "country" in this context, nobody is arguing that Taiwan is a province. Nevertheless there is strong consensus towards "country" and that, I think, is something we should go with. As the RfC is getting less active, I guess we should call in an admin. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 06:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Eumat114 For many people, particularly those who live in countries divided into smaller states, such as Germany, Mexico, and the United States, the title of state carries a connotation of inferiority and submission to a central power. ~ HAL333 03:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
HAL333, yes so "sovereign state" is a better choice IMO. After all, the "status quo" is that Taiwan is a sovereign state. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Eumat114 I would back the use of the term "sovereign state" as well. ~ HAL333 13:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • State I remember an RFC a longgg time ago that concluded that state is more neutral than country. Country is highly subjective imo whereas state is regularly defined in international legal literature. Augend (drop a line) 23:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Reword more severely. Drop the fourth lede paragraph while introducing the international politcal statehood dispute into the lede sentence. i.e.

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

Both "country" and "state" are word games that mean different things to different people, and both are wrong in some ways. Taiwan is, and is not, a real state, and a real country. It depends on one's political perspective. The fourth paragraph is excessive bloat for a lede section, I guess it is like that because the dispute is so important. If the dispute is so important, and it definitely is, then introduce it to the lede sentence. Taiwan is more notable as a disputed state than it is as something in East Asia. The fourth paragraph can be merged into the lede of the level section Taiwan#Political_and_legal_status. The words fit better there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete the fourth lede paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talkcontribs) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)} stray draft words that weren't meant to be added. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the dispute is important enough to mention in the opening sentence, and that the fourth paragraph is bloated, but not that it should be deleted entirely. There are key points about Taiwan's status: that it is claimed by the PRC, diplomatically recognized by few countries but has de facto relations with most, and the way the main political divide reflects attitudes on the question. The reason you don't see anything similar in other country articles is because this situation has no parallel elsewhere, and that's also why they are essential to any summary. Kanguole 10:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. "Delete" was the wrong word. The essential part can get into the lede sentence, and the rest can go below in the body. If the dispute make the lede sentence, there is no need to add quickly stated details, details go below, and as per the rest of the lede section, there is much more to Taiwan than the state status dispute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The essential stuff is too much to fit all of it in the opening sentence, but too important to omit from the lead. There is certainly much more to Taiwan than the dispute, but Taiwan's unusual status is also key to understanding the place. Kanguole 12:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The first sentence needs to remain simple and easy to read. Phlar (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Opening a discussion; see my comment below. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Support "country". Also support "country, and disputed state". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country - calling it a state would seem like something the PRC would want to do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Deathlibrarian, as per WP:TDLI that "calling it a state is what the PRC wants" is not a really valid argument. Besides, the PRC wants to call it a province, which is radically different from a "state". A state is, as I said before, the closest thing to a country that is internationally politically correct and also close enough to the messy political situation. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • In light of the discussions above the problem might not be as simple as a "country" vs. "state" distinction. We need a deeper discussion into how the first section above; I am WP:BOLDly opening a new section about a discussion on the layout. Feel free to close/revert me if you deem it unnecessary. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • State - calling it a "Country" seems to unneccesarily wade into domestic politics about the nature of the RoC vs independence leaning parties. (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country or sovereign state. It is not a state of a larger country, therefore it should NOT be called simply "a state". Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Taiwan is an island; to call it a country or a state is to confuse geography with politics. The Republic of China is both a state and a country. It's best described as a country.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Taiwan's circumstance is so unique that it's really difficult to draw parallels to other examples, but I would like to attempt to draw some parallels with a regional neighbor: Korea. There are some slight parallels with Korea. Both North Korea and South Korea hold claims to each other's territories (in parallel with how the ROC and PRC hold claims to each other's territories), and both of these articles refer to the topic in question as countries (i.e. North Korea article says North Korea is a country, as does South Korea's article). The difference between Korea's case and Greater China's case is that both Korean governments coexist in the United Nations whereas the ROC and PRC do not, and that the size of territory controlled by the PRC and the ROC is so vastly imbalanced to the point where it's hard to look at Taiwan and refer to it as "China" without further explanation. After exploring both Korean and Chinese Wikipedia spaces, the article names are as follows:
These articles in both Wikipedias are based on the government names and not by the colloquial names (i.e. Taiwan is named 中华民国 and not 台湾), which allows for the text to be more specific. If we were having a debate about what to name the article (a debate that's already taken place), then this would be a good argument, but if we're set on referring to this page as Taiwan and not the Republic of China then it just feels weird to call it a country while at the same time just referring to it as a mere state. In China's case, it is further complicated by the fact that the Republic of China not only controls Taiwan but also controls Kinmen, Matsu, and other territory not considered part of "Taiwan" or its surrounding islands, so to say that "Taiwan is a country" is true in a colloquial sense but can technically be interpreted as false. Kinmen is *not* Taiwan, and Kinmen is as much a territory of the Republic of China as is Taiwan. I think the only objective way to proceed with breaking this down is to use the policy of deliberate ambiguity in this particular article followed by directing readers to a place that breaks down Taiwan's situation in an objective manner (Political status of Taiwan is a great article that serves this purpose). -- zaiisao (talk | contribs) 00:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  Comment:: I feel it really bad to let Wikipedians to judge something that even the experts cannot state explicitly. Such judgement, as far as I am concerned, would be essentially populist due to our lack of knowledge which often biases our judgement. Also, keeping a populist rule but ignoring 1.4 billion Chinese would definitely be stupid and undoubtedly offensive. The wise way is that we should make it less populist, and less rely on how we really feel about the thing and instead clearly describe the dispute explicitly by saying that Taiwan is a "disputed state/country" and leave it alone. Drawing a conclusion on a disputed topic as if the dispute had been settled is not at all what we should and could do.--34Unionist (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
If China didn't want the voice of 1.4 billion Chinese people to be unheard, it wouldn't have implemented the Great Firewall. This is something beyond our control, and beyond our jurisdiction; it's the consequence of a 100% self-inflicted ailment. People in China who are already passionate enough about contributing to Wikipedia would have already done so via VPNs (there are thousands of such Wikipedia editors, contributing to the project right now), so it's not like they're actively being excluded by Wikipedia. With this in mind, we need to focus on how we can improve the reading experience for our current readers of Wikipedia, rather than the potential experience of a hypothetical 1.4 billion people who don't know about Wikipedia, don't wish to read Wikipedia, or don't need to read Wikipedia. Based on Wikipedia policy, the majority of reliable sources call the topic of this article a country; based on Wikipedia policy, the name most commonly used to describe the topic of this article is Taiwan.

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

@Benlisquare:Sorry but I would consider you what you said a little bit racist for I did not even try to speak Chinese here. You don't need to assume that I can read Chinese deliberately, treat me differently from others here by being sarcastic about what I have said in written Chinese. What you say about the majority of Chinese who is underrepresented here is just as absurd as those who want to silence Taiwan as an underrepresented state in the world. You should by no means make such sarcasm, which, in my humble opinion, backfires. --34Unionist (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Ugh, you see, this is why there is a common negative stereotype of Chinese people debating online, you immediately jump towards a defensive position, find a convenient target amongst something small I say, and conveniently avoid addressing the primary issue.

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

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

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

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

It doesn't matter. I don't think your background matters when talking with you until you told me it is important. I am proud of my background and am happy to share the information, but it is totally not relevant to this debate. OK? Your personal history doesn't matter to me or to the issue, either. I am just trying to remind you of that. It is racist, I mean the behaviour of treating people differently according to their background. Sorry for improper wording. --34Unionist (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
My position still stands unchanged. If your concern is that the voice of Chinese people is being unduely misrepresented here, then by all means find a way to increase constructive Chinese participation in this discussion. It is not the fault of the Wikipedia community that there are various restrictions that prevent such participation from occurring, and you should not place the blame on us when it is a factor completely beyond our control. --benlisquareTCE 16:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Moreover have all 1.4 billion Chinese been personally asked in a way that would allow for them to express their views without fear of reprisal? If so can we have a link to the survey in question?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a red herring. Also, you are being sarcastic about China of lack of free speech, but you will not actually listen to any of a real Chinese from China who is trying to exercise his freedom of speech, despite all the sarcasm and presumption you make about them. This is hypocritical. You are actually a censor in another sense.--34Unionist (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
No I am asking how you know what 1.4 billion Chinese think. Ohh and we do listen to them, the problem is there are (at least) two factions. So which one do we decide is authoritative?, which is why I asked for proof this is what all Chinese think, because those who live in Taiwan would say they do not agree.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a question given that you claim to live in the PRC, wouldn’t it be illegal for a PRC citizen to vote “Country” in this poll? Pretty sure that would count as separatism, no? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
"Taiwan but also controls Kinmen, Matsu, and other territory not considered part of "Taiwan" or its surrounding islands" This is as silly as saying that "Corsica" is not part of "France". Countries all over the world incorporate and control territory that is not contiguous with the "main bodies" of those countries. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • De facto sovereign state: As others have pointed out, this is a technically precise term in terms of international recognition and international law, which is also used by a large proportion of academic & journalistic RSes. It specifies the actual situation without deferring to ambiguous terms like state (polity) and country.
    Country is ambiguous, since it is used for dependencies and constituent states as well as for sovereign states. The alternative of de facto country isn’t standard terminology – it’s not frequently used by RSes nor by major international organizations.
    It’s inappropriate exercise to directly use editors’ personal understandings of the situation to describe it. We should defer to academic & journalistic RSes and major international organizations, while acknowledging the pressure applied by the PRC to the latter group. Self-determination also isn’t an appropriate barometer, since there are dozens of declared independent and micro states that are described as sovereign states by almost no academic/journalistic RSes and almost no major international organizations.
    The above are general points that should apply to all entities, in particular those with limited recognition by a large proportion of RSes/major international organizations. — MarkH21talk 12:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Since I just noticed some requests here for references using "de facto" with "sovereign state" or "state", here are a few from the thousands that can be easily found with a quick search:
      • Clough, Ralph N. "The Status of Taiwan in the New International Legal Order in the Western Pacific." Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), vol. 87, 1993, pp. 73–77. JSTOR, Link.
      • Barry, Bartmann. "Between De Jure and De Facto Statehood: Revisiting the Status of Taiwan." Island Studies Journal, vol 3(1), 2008. Link.
      • Chen, Angeline G. "Taiwan's International Personality: Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones." Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal, vol 20(2), 1998. Link.
      • Carolan, Christopher J. "The 'Republic of Taiwan': A Legal-Historical Justification for a Taiwanese Declaration of Independence." New York University Law Review, vol 75(2), 2000. Link.
      • Ediger, Mikaela L. "International Law and the Use of Force Against Contested States: The Case of Taiwan." New York University Law Review, vol 93(6), 2018. Link.
      • Otopalik, Cameron M. "Taiwan's Quest for Independence: Progress on the Margins for Recognition of Statehood" Asian Journal of Political Science, vol 14, 2006. Link.
      • Cho, Young Chul and Ahn, Mun Suk. "Taiwan’s international visibility in the twenty-first century: A suggestive note." Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis, vol 72(1), 2017. Link.
      • Shih, Shu-mei and Liao, Ping-hui. "Comparatizing Taiwan." Routledge, 2014. Link.
      • Article by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: link.
      • Article by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs: link.
      • Article by the BBC: link.
      • Article by France 24: link.
      • Article by NPR: link.
      • Article by the Financial Times: link.
      • Article by the CBC: link.
      • Article by The Diplomat: link.
      • Article by Foreign Policy: link.
      • Article by the Japan Times: link.
      • Article by The Wire: link.
      • This common description is even recognized by an article in the Taipei Times: link.
MarkH21talk 04:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

  • State English wikipedia should meet most people's opinions. That is to say, the attitudes towards English wikipedia should be consistent with most countries and most international organisations instead of someone's political view. Of course there are some countries which have diplomatic relations with Republic of China, so when it comes to some political article about the ROC, it can be regarded as a country. However, in most of the websites, news, reports and newspaper, we cannot see the three words regardless of the requirement of Communist Party of China or the own behaviour of other countries. So in my point of view, English wikipedia should respect most countries' and international organisations' decisions because there aren't and shouldn't be so much disagreement here. English wikipedia is not Chinese wikipedia and doesn't have severe conflicts between PRC and ROC, China and Taiwan. --Easterlies (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Easterlies (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • However, in most of the websites, news, reports and newspaper, we cannot see the three words - Source? Can you provide links that show that most "websites, news, reports and newspapers" don't use words such as "country" to describe Taiwan? --benlisquareTCE 16:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country', and here's why: "State" is a very generic term that can be applied to various sorts of government entities. Even :"sovereign state"--which the states in the US like to call themselves even though they are actually independent in only a few limited matters. Bt "country" is specific. In a political sense, it means a full self-governing country, or one that at least chooses to claim that it is self governing, like the Soviet era republics. Taiwan is in both its own opinion self governing, and no subject to any outside controls except for whatever may be its treaty obligations. It runs its own foreign affairs, it has its own military force. It may think it ought to be the legitimate government of mainland China, but in practice it has no authority there. The PRC considers Taiwan's claim to independent status illegitimate, and therefore does not refer to it as a country, and so do some other governments and organizations that wish to be on good terms with the PRC. But in practice the PRC has no actual jurisdiction there and no actual military forces or other instruments of government active there, however much it may wish otherise -- and, even, to those who uspport the PR politically, however much it possibly might be entitled to justly wish otherwise and consider it entitled to. Country is therefore the more specific definition,and what we ought to use. We describe the world as it is, whether or not we like the way it is. It's justified by the actual facts of the current situation, and by what it considers itself. It is open to anyone to l decide whether o not to consider this status legitimate. (The examples of usage above are mostly irrelevant--ther terms are in general writing used withoutay specific thought to the specific meaning). DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    @DGG: Which US states claim to be sovereign?! — MarkH21talk 01:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    All of them. As stated in our own article "each state holds governmental jurisdiction over a separate and defined geographic territory and shares its sovereignty with the federal government." --Khajidha (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    Right, a state shares its sovereignty with the federal government, so it is not a sovereign state on its own. A sovereign state isn’t dependent on other overarching entities. — MarkH21talk 02:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    Wouldn't that also apply to the EU members that have delegated part of their sovereignty to the EU itself? --Khajidha (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    EU member states don’t share sovereignty with the EU organization in the same way that US states do. The powers delegated to the EU aren’t of the same binding and supreme authority that the US federal government holds (both legally and de facto). For instance, see Member state of the European Union#Sovereignty: Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union guarantees the sovereignty of EU member states, while allowing for partial delegation to EU institutions. In other words, EU member states have delegated partial sovereignty to the EU in a limited sense (akin to the early US two centuries ago), yes, but not to the same degree that US states have.
    But we don’t need to trust my explanation or ponder the extent to which partial sovereignty renders the term sovereign state inapplicable. RSes treat EU member states as sovereign states. RSes haven’t described US states as sovereign states since the mid-19th century. — MarkH21talk 03:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Country or Sovereign state - b/c a) per all the "de facto" comments above, that's what it is, and b) that's how most sources refer to it. NickCT (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment most sources i see here are from newspapers, magazines, governmental-entities etc. i feel like this question needs to be determined by a "scientific" consensus, i.e. what do most publications outside PRC/ROC say since 1949? as for my little oxford study of facts:
country: "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory."
if nation condition is satisfied, yes.
nation: "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory."
very debatable. then again, such is this definition for the USA, or even PRC, or indeed any other country in the world. one might argue, even for "nation states". so id say yes, country.
state: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government."
considered by whom? not by the UN as a whole. but by a few member states. the rest is surely true. quite a fuzzy definition in my eyes. id say, yes, state.
souvereign state: "a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not :subject to or dependent on another power."
not more dependent than many other countries "considered as" that, so yes, sovereign state.
EnTerbury (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Per your own "oxford study of facts" it is NOT a sovereign state per the UN and most other sovereign states, as it is subject or dependent on another power, China. It's defined territory is very up in the air for the same reasons. It's a unique situation to be sure, but it is not a sovereign state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click):, none of the definitions i quoted mention the UN, neither does the definition of "sovereignty" or the like. as has been mentioned several times in the discussion above, ROC is much more independent than many other UN member countries that do not have these talk pages. moreover, one should not confuse sovereignty and dependence. what do you mean by "defined territory"? taiwan is very much under their control, and thats all the definition is concerned about. EnTerbury (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
country: Taiwan should be called a country. It has it owns government, its own military and everything that a country has. The only thing that is lacks is a major international recognition but taiwan is still recognized by 15 other countries. The ROC is the official name of taiwan and inthe beginning of the article it also says that the republic of china also referred to as Taiwan. It wouldnt be fare to Taiwan to be called a state on wikipedia although it has everything a country has. No other soevereign country is called a state on wikipedia so that should also not happen with Taiwan.Finn.reports (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

De facto state: It is a sovereign state in all but widespread recognition. Country is ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Everyone discussing Taiwan is a country or not. Should we start to discuss other countries are countries or not. In Past, when there was UN, at that time also countries were present.PRC just claim, why a country's Claiming getting much importance than hurting 23 million people of Taiwan.If we are discussing Taiwan a country or not, we should ask a Taiwanese, what he feels.When I study the Constitution of ROC, no statement I found that it's not a country. And this talk page will have no conclusion, there is no timeline or judge for it, so who gonna conclude ?? Kushal2024 (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is that most countries do not have another country saying they are part of them. Added to this is very few countries claim that another country is owned by them. This is far more complex than most national identities.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kushal2024: The Constitution of the Principality of Sealand also does not indicate that it’s not a country. Do you think that any constitution would? — MarkH21talk 11:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
As for conclusion, this discussion has been set up as an RFC, so eventually an uninvolved administrator will close it, assessing consensus. Kanguole 11:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I have requested closure of this RFC at WP:AN/RFC. Kanguole 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Full Protection is not necessaryEdit

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

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

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

And I see no reason to assume this...will not stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
We have consensus on the "ROC"/“Taiwan” thing and it seems we are about to have consensus on the "country"/“state” thing. If we can turn the ROC vs ROC (Taiwan) as the official name thread into a RFC we can solve all three problems being argued over. Once we have established consensus we can take strong action against those who edit against it and the problem should be over soon enough. We might keep having to whack-a-mole new accounts and IPs but thats the case on hundreds if not thousands of pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Official name is not determined by consensus, but by the founding document of the nation. The government and others can use any other names as AKA, but official name remained unchanged unless there is an amendment to change it. --Will74205 (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The Constitution of Australia affirms that New Zealand is a state of Australia, the Constitution of the United States guarantees personal privacy, and the Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Let's not put constitutions on a pedestal here. --benlisquareTCE 06:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem arrises in that we use the english language here and most of the founding documents of nations around the world are not in english, if thats your argument then the official name section should be filled with traditional Chinese characters not english text. For many countries their name in english is different from their name in their native tongue, sometimes to the point of being literally unrelated. Thats why we use consensus even if at first it seems silly and yes if all the constitutions of the world were written in english it *would* be silly but they aren’t. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

The current preferred name of the Taiwanese Government is Republic of China (Taiwan) if you’re wondering where that "contingent of editors” gets the idea (I think you may have misinterpreted the arguments being made there). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
"Republic of China" is the official name, as enshrined in the constitution, unless there is an amendment to change it, all other names are AKA.--Will74205 (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Just like the "state" vs "country" rfc above, there are a few things that need to be considered: 1) What the entity calls itself via reliable primary sources. 2) What the entity is called by reliable secondary sources. 3) How the general public recognizes the entity. There is more to any story than just the constitution of a country. Wikipedia needs to take a NPOV stance that is not influenced by either side of a debate / religious war. Stephen Balaban 08:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Personally I reserve judgement on what the official name is but I know its one of those debates in which there is no clearly right side... The situation I’m faced with now is that Will74205 says they knows what the country’s official name is and the president of the country says she knows what the name is, they are in disagreement. You apparently expect me to take your word, that of some sketchy rando on the internet, over the word of the president of the country in question. Do you see why you being so sure of yourself comes off a little hollow? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Kinmen and MatsuEdit

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

Obviously you’re going to need to attach a translation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry! I had other work to do yesterday. Cycw (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The lead paragraph briefly covers Kinmen and Matsu, albeit without directly referring to the islands by name, with the line Although the ROC government continued to claim to be the legitimate representative of China, since 1950 its effective jurisdiction has been limited to Taiwan and numerous smaller islands; users are then able to click the link should they desire to learn more about those outlying islands. --benlisquareTCE 03:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I see it. But this brings up a problem on what the article should focus on because it is titled as "Taiwan". Kinmen and Matsu are not geographically part of Taiwan, but the political entity controls Kinmen and Matsu. So wouldn't this become a bit ambiguous and would not give accurate information (the difference between the geographic and political differences)? I think the Chinese Wikipedia does a relatively good job about this.Cycw (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Wait, why don't we just call this article "Republic of China (Taiwan)" which implies that this is about the political concept? That would be nice. Cycw (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is about the country of Taiwan. --Khajidha (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
So what are you trying to say?Cycw (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The country that you're talking about does not call itself just "Taiwan" as in what happens when you go to their official website. Cycw (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
We are not bound by "official" terminology. The name of this country in general English usage is Taiwan. It includes the island of the same name and the surrounding minor islands under its control. --Khajidha (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, that doesn't make the country's name "Taiwan". There is an entire party called the Kuomintang that would defend the name "the Republic of China". Also this would not comply under Wikipedia's NPOV policy as this is biased toward the Green camp. So are most mainstream media, I should point out. Cycw (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so that was a bit of a slight tangent. I suggest that we mention Kinmen and Matsu right after The island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third, where its highly urbanised population is concentrated as they are quite important. Cycw (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Already mentioned later in the lead ("its effective jurisdiction has been limited to Taiwan and numerous smaller islands."). As well as the Geography section.--Khajidha (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I meant right after the sentence. Sorry for any confusion. Cycw (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
So can I move that, I guess? Moving the description earlier and modifying it reflects the strategic importance of Kinmen and Matsu within the political entity. Cycw (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I think what we have now is sufficient. With the exception of Kinmen the minor outlying islands are just that, minor. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
So can I add the bit about Kinmen then? That was literally all that I wanted to do. Cycw (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems like undue weight to give to such a minor thing.--Khajidha (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Don’t add it to the lead—undue weight as Khajidha wrote. If you must, expand one of the sections where Kinmen & Matsu are already mentioned in the body. Phlar (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Cycw (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
Well, If it only describes the geography of the island of Taiwan and not that of Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu in the lead paragraph, this would be hardly be sufficient for an encyclopedic article, where we strive for rigorousness. The point is, it is missing roughly 2% of the territory of the political entity, and by not placing a description of it in the lead paragraph, it is implying that these territories are not important, when they clearly are. Cycw (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Clearly? I don't see how they are important. Ythlev (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
OK. So, first of all, Kinmen and Matsu are the first line of defense for the ROC from the PLA, and they are also a major factor to prevent Taiwanese independence, as in that if Taiwan is to declare independence from China (no matter what China means to you), They take these two regions with them while, since it is Taiwanese independence, they will have taken regions that are not geographically part of Taiwan, thus causing an invasion to the Chinese Mainland, and China is in its right to invade Taiwan (Kinmen and Matsu are very blue themselves too). So say they give it back to China, and they draw the border at the midline of the strait. They would be defenseless. All China has to do is to make the Penghu landing, which is what Koxinga did. And considering the difference in strength of the two militaries, the PLA can easily take over. And since China and America agreed that America would stay out if neither Beijing nor Taipei change the status quo, Taiwan would be sure to lose. So there you go - why Kinmen and Matsu are important.
You are still trying to distinguish between "Taiwan the island" and "Taiwan the country". If the ROC declares independence as a country called Taiwan, the fact that these are separate islands is pretty well irrelevant. They are currently under Taiwanese jurisdiction and would remain so. Nothing would have changed and no "invasion" of the mainland would have occurred. --Khajidha (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Here we go again. To quote another Wikipedia article, "The Taiwan independence movement is a political and social movement that aims to establish an officially independent sovereign state and new country on the archipelagic territory of "Formosa and Pescadores", based on a unique "Taiwanese national identity"." It says "Formosa (Taiwan Island) and Pescadores (Penghu)", with no mentioning of Kinmen and Matsu. So, they would be invading China if they do not give Kinmen and Matsu back. Also, the idea that the common name of the "Republic of China" is "Taiwan" is mostly, if not entirely, a Pan-Green idea, so, again, you would be breaking Wikipedia's NPOV policy by insisting that Taiwan is a country or, for what you said, "Taiwan the country". Cycw (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, just to clarify, the Taiwanese independence we are talking about here is not a movement of ROC renaming itself Taiwan, but the geographic Taiwan breaking itself apart from de facto ROC. Renaming is a whole other thing, as it is already assuming the Taiwan is already a country. Cycw (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
You need to reread the article Taiwan independence movement, as your description does not line up with all proponents of such. And the "idea that the common name of the "Republic of China" is "Taiwan" " has nothing to do with the Pan-Greens or any other Taiwanese political party, it is simply an objective description of the de facto situation. --Khajidha (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
So are you saying that "The Republic of China is Taiwan" is commonly accepted then? Cycw (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
In English language usage, yes. Hence why the page is named as it is. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Now, that is a Pan-Green ideology, and just because it is in a different language and is supported by almost every mainstream medium does not mean it is not biased, because in Taiwan, the issue is definitely split 50/50, as the Pan-Blue coalition does not support it. Why not take into account the voice of all Taiwanese? A brief history of how this came about: "the ROC comes to Taiwan" --> "the ROC on Taiwan" (Lee Teng-hui) --> "the ROC is Taiwan" (Chen Shui-bian, Tsai Ing-wen). Cycw (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and for Tsai Ing-wen, It is better to say that her idea is to call the political entity the Republic of China - Taiwan (中華民國台灣), although there are no really 100% fitting translations.
Whatever the Pan-Greens or any other Taiwanese political party believes is beside the point. The concept that "The Republic of China is Taiwan" is simply the conception that has developed in the English speaking world. --Khajidha (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
And that is biased. And Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased. What is stopping anyone to add a phrase of description on how big Kinmen and Matsu are after mentioning how big Taiwan island is? Cycw (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Dude, you’re out of line. Accusing the entire community of bias is well beyond the subject matter at hand here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I do realize that. Don't take it as me not respecting all of your opinions - I do. My original suggestion was to add a line of description here -

"Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia. Neighbouring states include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the north-west, Japan to the north-east, and the Philippines to the south. The island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third, where its highly urbanised population is concentrated. The two groups of islands off the shore of the Chinese Mainland that are controlled by the political entity, Kinmen and Matsu, have a combined area of 179.26 square kilometers (69.217 sq mi). Taipei is the capital and largest metropolitan area. Other major cities include Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan and Taoyuan. With 23.7 million inhabitants, Taiwan is among the most densely populated states, and is the most populous state and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)." Thanks for the reminder. Cycw (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Kinmen and Matsu are the first line of defense for the ROC. I don't know what you mean by being "the first line of defense" but the Ministry of Defense publicly stated that in the event of an invasion, Kinmen and Matsu would have to defend themselves. They are effectively exclaves like West Berlin, which I wouldn't call a line of defense. they will have taken regions that are not geographically part of Taiwan, thus causing an invasion to the Chinese Mainland, and China is in its right to invade Taiwan. Don't be silly. Wars are rarely fought with legitimacy in mind. If you want to talk about legitimacy, Kinmen and Matsu are internationally recognised as a part of China, and China is internationally recognised as the PRC, so keeping Kinmen and Matsu is an act of rebellion. Cracking down rebellion, while often condemned, is not against international law. The ROC can expel Kinmen and Matsu, like how Malaysia expelled Singapore, then declare independence, completely legitimately. Ythlev (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
So that's why they re unimportant? Cycw (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Because legitimacy is unimportant. It does not decide wars or diplomacy or everyday life. Kinmen and Matsu are no different from Penghu. Ythlev (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
And, referring to your last sentence, the ROC declaring independence from whom? Cycw (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I meant ROC changing its name to Taiwan, renouncing its mainland territory etc, whatever you meant. Ythlev (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Not only is this bit "Kinmen and Matsu are internationally recognised as a part of China, and China is internationally recognised as the PRC, so keeping Kinmen and Matsu is an act of rebellion. Cracking down rebellion, while often condemned, is not against international law. The ROC can expel Kinmen and Matsu, like how Malaysia expelled Singapore, then declare independence, completely legitimately.” off topic its also facepalm level wrong. The mental gymnastics you have to do to arrive at that position are wild even by the standards of the China-Taiwan conflict. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Which part? Ythlev (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Translation: The Republic of China respects the historical fact that the People's Republic of China controls the territory of the occupied area of the mainland, and recognises the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China.

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

Here is the actual bill: [66]. It makes no mention of the PRC. As for territory, the constitution already uses the "free area", so this is not that much of a change. Ythlev (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
How do you not see the mentioning of the PRC? It is the third item on the second page, which is quoted above! Cycw (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
That is the explanation of why the bill is proposed, not the law itself. Ythlev (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
First of all, a bill is obviously not the law, and secondly, I was asking you how you did not see the mentioning of the PRC (which may be that there is a confusion here). Now that we got stuff cleared up, it is important that we know that the ROC does not recognize the PRC yet, and the bill (or the explanation, as you mentioned) is saying that the ROC recognizes the sovereignty of the PRC, which, if the bill will be passed, will become the truth. So let's go from here? Cycw (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The bill is the PROPOSED law. And the bill itself does not mention the PRC, just as Ythlev said. --Khajidha (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense. But how are we going to add this? Cycw (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
We aren't. At least not until after the vote.--Khajidha (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Cycw (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I've briefly skimmed through the text, and you're right in that it does not mention the PRC within the bill itself, I stand corrected. My question is that, wouldn't there be quite a difference between merely delimiting different areas of territory (one administered, one not administered) without relinquishing it, and officially de jure stating that the territory is no longer yours? Especially in regards to international relations and diplomacy? --benlisquareTCE 23:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I mean, the Mainland won't like it. Other countries probably don't care. Cycw (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
It practically makes no difference. Kinmen and Matsu are internationally recognised as part of China, but if the PRC invades, that would still not be okay for the international community. Ythlev (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Wrong section...? Cycw (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I mean, both sections are about technicalities and ceremonial facts instead of actual significance. Ythlev (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
This is not a recognition of the PRC, it is simply a rewording of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area to remove the explicit reference to reunification. It doesn't change anything to the ROC constitution or to territory claimed by the ROC. To recognize the PRC, the ROC would have to relinquish its own claim to Mainland China, but to do that a three-quarter majority in the Legislative Yuan is required AND over 50% has to agree in a referendum. It's not that easy. De wafelenbak (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
No, whether the constitution claims mainland China is under dispute. The constitution merely says the territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries. What you are saying is the KMT's interpretion of the constitution. In 1993, DPP legislators argued that mainland China is not included in the "existing national boundaries" mentioned in the constitution. They asked the Judicial Yuan, who has legal power to interpret the Constitution, to clarify this issue. The judical yuan denied to interpret what "existing national boundaries" include, saying this is a significant political question and beyond the reach of judicial review. [67][68] The dispute has not yet been resolved since then. Recently, KMT legislators are still asking the DPP premier and judical yuan nominees to assert that the constitution claims mainland China, while they still avoid making such claims. [69][70]--Visaliaw (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know the DPP actually disputed that (I thought they were only unhappy with it). De wafelenbak (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 May 2020Edit

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

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


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

  • Translation: Wikipedia has already become that admins are being rogue and using the administrative tools to get profit, and randomly blocking users -- Wikipedia is not a forum for random free speech. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Km212: I would tend to agree with this sentiment. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Alternative translation: Wikipedia has become a tool for dominance and personal profit by admins, who block (or lock out) users as they please. Phlar (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Should I bring this up at WP:ANI? Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC) account was a sock puppet of a user blocked in the Chinese Wikipedia. Disruption on the Chinese articles related to Taiwan. Should keep an eye on this. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
For what purpose? Phlar (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Nah, if it weren't a grievance carried over to enwiki like this I'd like to take such claims of abuse seriously. But now he's a blocked user on the Chinese Wikipedia complaining of free speech and other nonsense issues, forget about that. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Lai Ching-teEdit

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

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

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

  Done I have updated the infobox. Are any updates required elsewhere and can someone draft a prose update on the recent election? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll do it. May take a few hours since I have quite a few meetings in the morning (such is life under work from home). Thank you for your help in the update! Also, do you know why the article is fully protected now? Too much trolling going on (again)? --AsianHippie (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 May 2020 (3)Edit

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


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


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

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

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

Restructuring of the leadEdit

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

An administrator already answered you... it's done properly per Wikipedia guidelines. And no reason to start a new section about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), you might have misunderstood me, as this discussion is unrelated to the above edit request, but rather to the above RfC. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I did since you said "above" with no mention of the RfC. I put it back as a topic. The RfC has nothing to do with structure, just whether we switch the word "state" with the word "country." Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), yes but the discussion did mention this, and I feel like this is an issue to be dealt with here as well. Nevertheless I'm a bit busy with other things, plus my semi-wikibreak, so I'd come here much less often. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe, that when the Talk:Taiwan#RfC:_Taiwan,_"country"_or_"state" RfC above is closed as "no consensus", which I believe it must because the question is too simple, it will then be appropriate to discuss a restructure of the lede. As above, I believe that the state status dispute belongs in the lede sentence, and that most of the fourth lede paragraph belongs in the article body. The state status dispute is way too important to not mention immediately, and way too complicated to attempt a balanced summary of details in the article lede. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • While I agree with "state"and the reasoning behind it, it's almost a snowball for "country." I'm not sure about changing the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Fyunck(click), yes, I must be been blind to the support for "country". I support it. It will be good for readability. It is, however, weak. I support "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country, and disputed state, in East Asia." I am not sure about the choice between "disputed" and "de facto", but I like "disputed" because it is a better pointer to the details below that can repeat the word "disputed". The will not be treatment in the body about "de facto". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
"Disputed state" is not a term I've seen used much outside of Wikipedia, and saying "country, and disputed state" is somewhat redundant and flows poorly. A better option would be having the subsequent sentences provide basic detail of the situation. For example, moving the current second and third sentence of the final paragraph to this position. Alternatively, move the entire fourth paragraph to become part of the first paragraph, and have geography/demography in other paragraphs. CMD (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Another way of mentioning the issue early would be to take the second half of the last sentence of the opening paragraph and make it the second sentence: "It is the most populous state/country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)." This would also help establish significance. Kanguole 07:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I like this "It is the most populous state/country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations" idea. It succinctly drives the point home, demonstrates significance, while also not assuming that the reader has prior knowledge of limited recognition states or disputed territories. --benlisquareTCE 09:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this above statement "country" can be used over "state" as it specifically states "not a member of the United Nations", thus being much more accurate than just "Taiwan is a country". Supporting the sentence It is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations., as long as it is cited. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The sentence works fine with either country or state. Presumably it would follow the RfC close. As for sourcing, that sort of sentence should be made up of information that can be sourced in the body. You make a point though that it doesn't seem to be at the moment. CMD (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
If there is any semblance of consistency to be established, the description should most certainly include Country. Reference wiki pages Singapore, Fiji, Cuba, Dominican Republic. Propose the following edit: "is a sovereign country consisting of a group of islands in East Asia. WikiSubjEditor (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSubjEditor (talkcontribs)
Except it is NOT a sovereign country. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I don't think you could call Taiwan a disputed state, because it does not claim to be a state, hence there is no dispute about its statehood. We don't call North and South Korea disputed states, even though they both claim sovereignty over the entire country of Korea. TFD (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: What do you mean it doesn't claim to be a state?

Tsai says Taiwan is an independent state called the Republic of China, its official name, and does not want to be part of the People's Republic of China.
— Article from Al Jazeera

Tsai, 63, is loathed by Beijing because her party views Taiwan as a de facto sovereign state and not part of a "one China".
— Article from the Bangkok Post

it is undeniable that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent state
— "The Official Position of the Republic of China (Taiwan) on China’s Passing of the Anti-secession (Anti-Separation) Law"

MarkH21talk 21:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
MarkH21, according to the Republic of China, Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China. The People's Republic of China agrees that Taiwan is part of China but disputes whether the PRP or ROC is the legimate government. The PRP irritated the ROC by passing a law saying that Taiwan could not secede from China. The ROC responded that Taiwan had the right to self-determination, although they have not in fact declared independence. Presumably if they declared independence, the ROC government would give up its claim to China and become the government of Taiwan only. Despite the de jure position of Taiwan under the laws of both the PRP and ROC, Taiwan acts as a de facto state. De facto refers what happens in practice, while de jure refers to the what should happen according to the letter of the law. The Queen for example is the de jure chief executive of the United Kingdom and fifteen other countries. In practice however, that role is carried out by prime ministers. TFD (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I mean, if you don't want to use "Taiwan" as the common name for the ROC, sure. Since it's been longstanding consensus that "Taiwan" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article, which is about the ROC, I was using "Taiwan" to mean the ROC as reliable sources generally do (e.g. the ones quoted above). But the point (which it seems we are all in agreement about) is that the ROC claims to be a sovereign state, and is often described as a de facto sovereign state. — MarkH21talk 02:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
"State" is a funny term, meaning different things in different places. It has conflicting meanings in the US. In idea on wording is: "The international status of Taiwan is disputed". "Status" alluding to "statehood", without implying a definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: In these contexts, "state" is used as synonyms for the precise term "sovereign state". I agree that relying on the term "state" (or "country") on its own is inherently ambiguous. — MarkH21talk 23:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, and for a lede sentence, relying on context for meaning is poor lede writing. The lede sentence should not be incorrectly interpretable, regardless of context to be explained in detail below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the RFC has now been closed, I'm re-iterating the above proposal to move the second half of the last sentence of the opening paragraph (with "country" to follow the RCF) and make it the second sentence of the opening paragraph:

"It is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations."

This would both provide an early mention of the status issue in straightforward terms and help establish the significance of the place. Kanguole 09:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 May 2020Edit

Change the Human Development Index (HDI) from 0.880 to 0.911. The 0.911 figure comes from the National Statistics website of Taiwan: The currently displayed 0.880 figure cites a third-party website database, the Global Data Lab (, which sources its data from an article in the journal Scientific Data (, yet that article also cites the National Statistics website of Taiwan, which clearly states the HDI for 2018 is 0.911. It is unclear what caused this mistake on the Global Data Lab website. I see that there is already a request for this on the Talk page dating April 2020 but I'm not sure why it hasn't been addressed. Masonwu1995 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not done for now: We tend to trust third parties over governments, as a government is always going to give a rosier picture of themselves. If you can get folks to agree that the addition is good by discussing and building consensus, please make another request. But for the time being, I think that is not an appropriate change, especially while under full protection. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
What a long route of almost circular citation. I don't saw any point against to use official figure if the citation that wikipedia is currently using, is citing Global Data Lab and in turn a journal article and in turn Taiwan official data. But i would say did World Bank or UN made their own calculation for Taiwan or due to Taiwan is not fully recognize as sovereign state, there is no data from World Bank / UN? (Yet i knew the World Bank database was in fact stating official government data sometimes) Matthew hk (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changeEdit

I propose to make this change: [71]

The official name issue is previously discussed in [72][73]. In the discussion, the proposed change was modified several times to the current version, to reach consensus with several editors. There are still some editors who disagree with the change, who provided arguments that are already addressed earlier in the discussion, which they did not read and respond to, thus preventing the forming of consensus.

For the changing the sentence about the legal claims to the mainland, the reason is provided here [74]. --Visaliaw (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The passport nationality field prints "Republic of China". The passport is one of the few English official documents. Ythlev (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above has an picture of an official document (Resident Certificate) using Republic of China(Taiwan). While the government use both names, it is not neutral to only choose one of them as the official name in the article.--Visaliaw (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The document does not say "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is the country's name. This document says "Taiwan Republic of China". Which is it? Refer to relevant laws[75]. Taiwan is definitely the name of a place, so there is nothing wrong to print it as the title of a travel document. The passport on the other hand says ROC is the nationality. Ythlev (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The English title on the resident cerificate is a translation of the Chinese title "中華民國居留證". Also the law you provided uses "Taiwan" as a translation of "我國"(literaly: our country) in the original Chinese text of the law, not "Republic of China".--Visaliaw (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
is a translation. No, it is not lol anyone who reads Chinese knows they don't mean the same thing. The English version of the law also has no official/legal status. Ythlev (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This is how the government translate the name of the country on the certificate. It is not a literal translation, but official names doesn't have to be translated literally.--Visaliaw (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
No, but official names have to be translated officially, which this isn't. If the ARC name is official, then the Exit & Extry Permit name is not, which makes no sense. Ythlev (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no clear definition of "translated officially". While the governments use different names on different documents, we should either include all those names as the official name in the first sentence, or avoid mention the official name issue in the first sentence and leave it to the Etymology section.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There is only one official name. People don't have more than one legal name. Businesses don't have more than one legal name. The passport is the most reliable source of it. Ythlev (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
"There is only one official name. People don't have more than one legal name. Businesses don't have more than one legal name." is a logical fallacy of Hasty generalization. "The passport is the most reliable source" you are Cherrypicking.--Visaliaw (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And you are proposing making the sentence unnecessarily longer without adding any useful information. Ythlev (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, the government uses multiple names and there are sources to support those names, so we should either include all those names as the official name in the first sentence, or avoid mentioning the official name issue in the first sentence and discuss it in the Etymology section if you think it would be too long for the first sentence. I have stated many times that while the government use both names, it is not neutral to only choose one of them as the official name in the article, and you are pretending not to see it.--Visaliaw (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written, with a suggestion for the second part below. This looks like a combination of:
    1. A partial rehash of the most recent discussion (pinging participants), wherein it seemed that there was no clear consensus either way, but that there was some opposition to using the current government's preferred English form Republic of China (Taiwan) on grounds of redundancy/awkward prose, non-universal usage, and the typical English translation of the Chinese name 中華民國.
    2. Removing the mention that there hasn't been a formal renunciation of claims to the mainland and replacing it with a mention about the claims to the mainland being disputed.
Regarding the first set of changes, the lead somehow reduces "Republic of China" to an AKA, which somewhat obscures that it was the only official name in the past, the only official name to some observers, and the dominant part of the preferred English form of the current government ("dominant" here referring to the fact that "Taiwan" is in parentheses while "Republic of China" is the first un-parenthesized part). Having a two-line "conventional_long_name" parameter in the infobox (even without parentheses), when the common name is already set to "Taiwan", seems a bit cumbersome and unnecessary.
Regarding the second set of changes, there's no need to remove the factual statement that the claims have not yet been renounced, which is what the cited source supports. One could describe the dispute over whether observers believe that the government has effectively renounced the claims and whether the government's policy supports any such claim, in a separate sentence. It would also have to be cited to new source (or at least a combination of new sources and the existing citation): the cited Chang book discusses challenges to the traditional claims up through 2012, but does not support the claim that it is disputed whether there is currently a legal claim at all. — MarkH21talk 04:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
"Republic of China" remains the official name per all reliable sources. In no way does "Taiwan" fit within the conventional_long_name field. I am also unaware of the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" formulation having received any constitutional status, if it has a source would be helpful.
Regarding the claims, we should not be interpreting the constitution ourselves, or be guided by the minutiae of Taiwanese political disputes. More substantive sources would be needed. CMD (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
It is extremely dangerous to the future of my account to participate in this type of discussion. I can have an unpredictable temper and others may be seriously put off by what I might say in a given discussion. Wikipedia and Wiktionary's system are not strong enough to actually permit me to express myself. I plan to continue editing on here for the rest of my natural life (maybe many decades). One discussion on one page about one contentious subject would be enough to scrap my account at the drop of a hat. In contrast, look at the useful work I did in Taiwan, Hubei, Xinjiang and Tibet minor geography- what I have done is a genuine treasure that will benefit the world for a long time. I expect that this Taiwan/ROC labelling discussion will continue throughout that multi-decade period. Rather than focus my energies on such a contentious and small part of Wikipedia, I have to- I really have to- actively and consciously choose not to spar through the decades on one (by comparison) minor issue and just build the encyclopaedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: An astute observation that any decision or consensus reached on WP wording will be unsatisfying to most observers. Just like the actual underlying geopolitical situation. Thanks for your productive energies elsewhere! — MarkH21talk 23:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
By the way, recent RSes still report very clearly about the "Republic of China" being the official name without mention of "Taiwan" in parentheses or otherwise (bolding mine):

Taiwan is a de facto independent state whose official name is the Republic of China.
— Article from Foreign Policy, 8 May 2020

Taiwan -- officially the Republic of China -- has been ruled separately from the mainland since 1949 after the Nationalists lost a civil war to the Communists and fled to the island to set up a rival government.
— Article from the Bangkok Post, 20 May 2020

Tsai says Taiwan is an independent state called the Republic of China, its official name, and does not want to be part of the People's Republic of China.
— Article from Reuters, 20 May 2020

Tsai says Taiwan is already an independent country called the Republic of China, its official name.
— Article from The Guardian, 24 May 2020

MarkH21talk 21:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
In the mindset of the "Western international order", it would seem beyond unusual for a country to have an official name situation like this. The Western eye believes, neigh demands that a country by definition must will have one and only one official name- and perhaps some other unofficial names. But that's not necessarily the case. It is conceivably possible that some countries may have more than one permutation of their official name. Hence I would be given to the tendency to say that the alternate official English language name ought be given equal treatment on Wikipedia. But that position could be too controversial and I don't want to get ban hammered because it's hard to accept that what I'm saying could be possible. However, I am drawn to the inexorable conclusion that 'Taiwan' is a component of the official name of the state headquartered in Taipei. If there are any responses here, I will look at them a minimum of one day after they are written to defend myself from engaging in a non-productive battle. -Wherever I am at is a free speech zone-Wikipedia doesn't need to follow PRC rules- Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
In general, yes, there are many scenarios where a sovereign state has had multiple official names, e.g. the Qing dynasty’s later simultaneous use of ”Qing”, “Da Qing”, and “Zhongguo” as official names. My point is that many, if not most, RSes (many happen to be Western but many, the Bangkok Post for instance, aren’t) still say that “Republic of China” is the official name (with direct implication or statement that “Taiwan” isn’t one). — MarkH21talk 07:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Name issues abound commonplace. The USA doesn't have a proper name, and issue that ties with American exceptionalism, and the assumption that we are probably all Americans, and failing that, that we are all intimately familiar with America. Awkwardly, it adopts the name of the continent, or several versions of abbreviations or shortenings, such as "The States". This phenomenon is remarkably similar to the city called "Istanbul", assuming the name when it was a city so large, so much larger than the next largest city in the known world, a name which is not a name, but simply "the city", as if there is only one city that could be called the city, which was true. Also the UK. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or just The United Kingdom, or Britain, or Great Britain, or England. The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is another difficult case; I prefer Trinbago. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking though, England is part of Great Britain which is part of the UK. These terms are recognized in UK law to refer to different things. Similarly both mainland China and Taiwan are part of China. The dispute is which government - the PRP or ROC - is legitimate. Conceivably the KMT could have been pushed out of China entirely and set up a government in exile somewhere else. The U.S. does have a proper name. It's origins are when it was 13 separate sovereign states in alliance. In fact there were no other sovereign states in the Americas at the time. TFD (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you’ll find that the Country of England is not defined in UK, not explicitly, only by subtraction. Is Taiwan a “country”, like England? Or more like Scotland? Are the US original 13 states sovereign states, and the later states non-sovereign states? Is the difference that a sovereign state has the right to seceded? Can Taiwan secede? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
England is defined in law. See Blackstone: "The kingdom of England, over which our municipal laws have jurisdiction, includes not, by the common law, either Wales, Scotland, or Ireland, or any other part of the king's dominions, except the territory of England only." England under common law was the territory recognized from time immemorial. He then mentions that Wales and Berwick-on-Tweed were incorporated into England by statute. When Ireland and later Scotland were merged with England to form the UK, they retained their own legal systems and established churches. So for example a court judgment in one country of the UK does not receive full faith and credit in another. England retains separate bodies, recognized by law, to licence some professionals such as lawyers and accountants.
All U.S. states are sovereign but they share sovereignty with the federation. The right of secession does not affect that. Taiwan cannot unilaterally secede under the constitution of the Republic of China. Taiwan is not comparable to the UK or U.S. because it is not a country or state, but a province. TFD (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
If you mean "Taiwan Province", it contains only a quarter of the population and has no government. Ythlev (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan province can refer to either Taiwan or an administrative district within Taiwan. TFD (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Only the PRC considers all of Taiwan to be a Taiwan province, since you bring up laws and stuff. Ythlev (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the Republic of China no longer considers Taiwan to be part of the Republic of China? TFD (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, now we're actually flinging semantics at one another. Taiwan Province makes up less than 70% of the land area of Taiwan Island, and less than 30% of the total population of Taiwan Island. Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China makes up 100.5% of the land area of Taiwan Island (because it also includes islands administered by Japan and not by the ROC). Taiwan is neither Taiwan Province, Taiwan Island, or Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China; Taiwan refers to the country/state/regime/whatever that is less commonly known as "Republic of China". If none of you guys are willing to acknowledge that you're shouting at one another while conflating multiple different things, then we may as well close shop now because this discussion is going nowhere with that sort of attitude. --benlisquareTCE 06:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
And since I know one of you smart alecks is going to respond to my comment with "but Kinmen and Matsu exists", I may as well make a pre-emptive retort. Yes, Kinmen and Matsu are both part of Fujian Province, Republic of China, and not Taiwan Province. However Fujian Province, Republic of China (including Kinmen and Matsu) and Taiwan Province are both part of the "Republic of China", of which the common name is Taiwan. So yes, it is incorrect to say that Kinmen and Matsu are part of Taiwan Province, however it is not incorrect to say that Kinmen and Matsu are part of the country/state/regime/erotic sex dungeon commonly known as Taiwan. And no, Dongsha Islands do not fall under this same conundrum, because "Guangdong Province, ROC" has long been disbanded many decades ago, and today the islands fall under the administration of Kaohsiung City, so please don't use the overhashed "but Dongsha Islands exists" argument either. --benlisquareTCE 07:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to clarify your question. Since you talk about laws and technicalities, here are the facts. In the ROC, there is no province simply named "Taiwan", just as there is no administrative area simply name "Chiayi". "Chiayi" is an ambiguous name that can refer to Chiayi City or Chiayi County, yet people use it anyways. Taiwan Province is Taiwan Island minus Taipei, New Taipei, Taoyuan, Taichung, Tainan, and Kaohsiung, and is practically meaningless, so stop saying Taiwan is a province. Deciding whether "Taiwan" can be used as a name based on a non-functional province with a similar name is absurd. Ythlev (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It goes by many names, in RS. But I suspect most people know it as Taiwan.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there an example of another country that includes an extraneous geographical term on its passports in the way that 'TAIWAN' is included on Taiwanese passports? Is it possible that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is in an incredibly complex political situation that needs to be treated with extreme nuance? All or at least the vast majority of the the English language documents generated by this nation state during the 21st century include the word 'Taiwan' in some sense. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I think we’re getting slightly off-topic here. Nobody is proposing to remove “Taiwan” from the article nor to rename the article. An editor proposed changes above that include replacing officially known as with also known as and removing the mention that claims to the mainland haven’t been officially renounced. — MarkH21talk 22:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This government publication clearly states that the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)[76], so the Republic of China is not the only official name. The official name by definition is how the government calls it self, so first-hand sources are more reliable then news articles on this issue. The governmen has been gradually increasing the usage of Republic of China (Taiwan) over Republic of China over the recent years, and news reporters might not have caught up on the change. While there are multiple official names, it is not neutral for the article to only describe one of them as the official name. Also, about the two citations MarkH21 provided about Tsai says Taiwan is an independent state, the full text of the interview is on the president's website here[77], and the video is here[78]. She actually said "We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China (Taiwan)".The reporters made a mistake. --Visaliaw (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

About the terrirorial claims, while the it is true that the government has not made an declaration to renounce the claims, making this statement in the article would mislead readers to believe that the government still claims the mainland until a formal renouncement is made. This is not the case, since the dispute is about scope of the constitutional claims itself. In the perspective of those who believe that the constitution doesn't claim the mainland, it is not necessary to make any renouncement. For sourcing of the constitutional claims is disputed, we could cite the documents of the judical yuan interpretion case which mentions "各界對此「固有疆域」之認定至今未有定論"[79].--Visaliaw (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

About the conventional_long_name field, even though the common_name field is set to Taiwan, the common_name field is not displayed in the article. To address the official name in the past, and the dominant part of the preferred English form of the current government, fully explaining it in the Etymology section would be better than making an unneutral statement in the first sentence. The previous version of the proposal was writing both ROC and ROC(Taiwan) as the official name in the first sentence, which was amended into aka because some editors think the official name issue is to complicated to fit in the first sentence.--Visaliaw (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Publications and websites are not official documents. You say we ignore you but you keep ignoring this point. Ythlev (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This is my response to Mark's argument. My response to your argument is above in the beginning of this section, right after your comments.--Visaliaw (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the territorial claims, that's why I suggested adding separate sentences about the modern legal dispute as additional information and context. It's unnecessary to remove the well-cited fact that the claims were never renounced and the citation at the end of the sentence does not support what the text was replaced by. — MarkH21talk 07:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC); half of comment was split to the subsection below 06:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Republic of China (Taiwan)Edit

The link you provided for the Tsai interview isn't the full text, you can easily compare it to the video. It's a summary published by the Presidential Office that reorders and omits some of the sentences (in fact, the questions aren't even in order), for example the actual words spoken were:

We have been adopting this approach of maintaining status quo despite [pause] there is so much pressure here that we should go further in the last more than three years we have been telling China that maintaining status quo remain to be our policy. I think that is a very friendly gesture to China
— 9m44s

That doesn't align with the Presidential Office summary's text. Nevertheless, the sources that I listed above aren't quoting Tsai directly and the point was that RSes still directly state the "Republic of China" is the / an official name. But perhaps "Republic of China (Taiwan)" as the conventional_long_name may be better than the line-separated version. — MarkH21talk 07:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC); split from comment above into this subsection 06:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The other interview questions doesn't matter, it is clear from 1m30s in the video that Tsai said Republic of China (Taiwan), showing that the news reporters did not carefully distinguish between ROC and ROC(Taiwan) while writing the sentence, thus discounts it's reliability on the official name issue. It also shows how news reporters could ignore the change in the actual name usage of the government due to inertia. So what do you suggest for the first sentence ? How about put both Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan) in the first sentence as official names, since there are sources to support both names.--Visaliaw (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The fact that a government uses an unofficial name does not make it an official name. West Germany and South Korea often used those names. They do this because that is what the rest of the world calls them. It did not mean that they had renounced their claim over the entire country (although W. Germany would at some point abandon its claims over Germany's pre-1945 borders.) TFD (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Adding to TFD’s point, Tsui said We are called Republic of China Taiwan (there’s no audible parentheses), which is not the same as saying that is their official name. The US being called America doesn’t mean that it’s their official name. The RSes above aren’t quoting Tsai when they write its official name; they are only attributing Tsai says Taiwan is an independent state called the Republic of China to her. — MarkH21talk 20:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Reponding to TFD, the government doesn't only use Republic of China (Taiwan) heavily, the Taiwanese government website explicitly says the / a official name is Republic of China (Taiwan) [80]. This is a reliable source sufficient to support adding Republic of China (Taiwan) as an official name in the article. If you want to argue that Republic of China is the only official name, you are disagreeing with the Taiwanese Government on what the official name is. In addition, Republic of China (Taiwan) is also used in international treaties, such as the Republic of China (Taiwan)-Nicaragua Free trade agreement[81], Republic of China (Taiwan)-Eswatini Economic Cooperation agreement[82]. International treaties are formal documents and countries usually, if not always use their official name. The territorial claim and the official names are seperate issues and I did not make the claim that one implies the other as TFD said. Responding to MarkH21, my point still stands, the news reporters ignores Tsai saying the word Taiwan, showing that the news reporters did not carefully choose the name when writing the sentence, thus discounts its reliability. Anyway, I am now proposing to describe both Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan) as official names in the article, which does not contradict the sources you provided.--Visaliaw (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This seems like a reasonable compromise given all thats been said, I think its been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the Government of Taiwan sees both “Republic of China” and “Republic of China (Taiwan)” as acceptable official names for the political entity we on wikipedia call Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
That's original research. Before the ROC lost its seat on the UN, it typically used the name China or Republic of China on treaties. Since then it de facto no longer claims to rule all of China and Mongolia. But it has not made any changes de jure. De facto means in fact, while de jure means in law. In fact the Taipei government does not pretend to be the government of all of China, but under its laws it still is.
Canada at one time was known as the Dominion of Canada, although that was not a legal name and has since been dropped. Then we have the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia.
TFD (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This is obviously not original research, the Taiwanese government website is a reliable source. The rest of your arguments doesn't seem very relevant to the official name issue being discussed, but you seem to assume that the English official name is specified in law, while it actually isn't.--Visaliaw (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Visaliaw: Stop repeatedly enacting your changes. Does it look to you like there is consensus for your changes? There certainly isn’t, and your changes have been contested already.
    Open an RfC if you must, but don’t edit war your changes in. — MarkH21talk 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the Taiwanese government website clearly supports that Republic of China (Taiwan) is an official name, and the opposers have not produced an effective argument supporting that Republic of China (Taiwan) is not an official name yet, and they stopped responding.--Visaliaw (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, if you ignore other editors’ points about use on a website not being definitive.
People not responding doesn’t mean they agree with you. That you personally find their arguments ineffective isn’t sufficient to overturn a lack of consensus. Nobody is obliged to respond to you until you are personally satisfied. Open an RfC if you’re unsatisfied with existing consensus. — MarkH21talk 02:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The website may not be definitive, but it is a reliable source using Wikipedia's standards.--Visaliaw (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, and it’s not the only reliable source. The point about not repeatedly making contested changes in the absence of consensus remains. — MarkH21talk 03:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The current lead is not presenting the view of the Taiwanese government, the most authoritative source of its own official name.--Visaliaw (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Just because I stopped responding doesn't mean I agree with you. Your argument is not any more effective. we should either include all those names as the official name in the first sentence, or avoid mentioning the official name issue in the first sentence. That is not an argument; it is an opinion which I don't agree with. The current sentence has both terms, you want to repeat those two terms to make it unnecessarily longer, while having no benefits. Ythlev (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
If you continue to make the edit without consensus, I will report you. Ythlev (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The current article does not follow the WP:NPOV policy when describing what the official name is. The sentence you don't agree with is my suggestion to solve this problem. If you don't agree, please propose an alternative solution that follows the WP:NPOV policy.--Visaliaw (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that it violates NPOV. It is not a "significant view". Ythlev (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
So you are saying the Taiwanese government's view on its own official name is not important.Visaliaw (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying the view that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is a name is insignificant. Ythlev (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Look, no one in Taiwan disputes the fact that the state is officially named ROC, even if they don't agree with it. All you are doing is trying to push a minority POV. Ythlev (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not my own POV, it is the Taiwanese government website saying the official name is "Republic of China (Taiwan)" (which implies that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is a name), and I am only arguing based on sources. Wikipedia is based on sources, not the belief of the general public in Taiwan. Not to say the official name is by definition decided by the government, not the general public. If you do not agree with your government, complain to the the government and ask them to change the website. Also I am not saying ROC is not an official name either, I propose to describe both as official names.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not my own POV. It is, because you are the only one who proposes the change. WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." it is the Taiwanese government website saying the official name is "Republic of China (Taiwan)" (which implies that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is a name,) Again, not a significant view which NPOV addresses. I do not make the same implication. Ythlev (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not the one who first proposed the change [83], and this change has been agreed by a few editors, I remind you. And you are grasping at straws by citing IAR because the policies are against you.--Visaliaw (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to cite anything. There is no consensus for the change either way. Ythlev (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

When determining consensus, the quality of the arguments and Wikipedia policies are considered.--Visaliaw (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Listen, there’s an entire body of RSes that say that Republic of China is the official name. Some other RSes and the government website use Republic of China (Taiwan). Multiple editors have expressed concerns that including both is redundant, and the assertion that Republic of China (Taiwan) is actually the official name is contested.
If you would still like to enact the change, please open an RfC. Otherwise we’re just going to waste time here. — MarkH21talk 09:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
MarkH21, could you summarize the the arguments made to contest that Republic of China (Taiwan) is an official name? I don't see substantial arguments. If opposers express their opposition and than stop responding (in good faith), it creates an situation where it seems like there is no consensus, regardless of whether the opposing argument is valid.--Visaliaw (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Funny you should say that when I just responded. Ythlev (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Whether an argument is valid is not for you to decide. Ythlev (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure it is not for me to decide, that's why I'm asking Mark (or someone else) to summarize the argument points. And when I say stop responding I'm not talking about Ythlev.--Visaliaw (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
My arguments against the proposed changes at the top of this section are in my !vote near the top of this section.
Regarding the tangent about Republic of China (Taiwan):
  1. A plethora of RSes clearly state that Republic of China is the sole official name or an official name.
  2. It would be ridiculously redundant to start the lead with Taiwan, officially known as Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan)
I’ve reorganized this discussion about Republic of China (Taiwan) into a subsection, since it’s not part of the original proposed changes in this section. — MarkH21talk 06:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any RS mentioning sole.--Visaliaw (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Wording like whose official name is the Republic of China implies uniqueness. Regardless, I wrote or an official name. — MarkH21talk 12:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems to be based on confusion over whether "official name" means the name officially defined or any name used on an official document. "Republic of China (Taiwan)" may be used on official documents, but I'm not aware of anything that defines it as the official name of the country. --Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the confusion is what constitutes "defines it as the official name". Without a clear definition, I could also say I'm not aware of anything that defines "Republic of China" as the official name of the country either. The Oxford dictionary defined 'official' as 'Relating to an authority or public body and its duties, actions, and responsibilities.'[84] or 'agreed to, said, done, etc. by somebody who is in a position of authority'[85].--Visaliaw (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The official ROC website states the "official name" of the country is Republic of China (Taiwan). [86] In all honesty I support these changes being made. Regardless of what reliable sources have to say on the matter the fact is that an "official name" of a country is inherently what the government says it is. That's what "official" means. The governing authority of Taiwan lists their official name as Republic of China (Taiwan). I personally don't like the name and it's rather unwieldy, but the fact of the matter is that they've decided on that name and their official government website lists it as their official name. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 05:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Chess: Just a clarification in case you intended to comment about the proposed changes that this section was originally about (otherwise feel free to ignore this). The actual proposed changes at the top of this section do not replace anything with Republic of China (Taiwan), despite that being the tangent that half of this discussion ended up focusing on. It makes multiple different changes. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Just a clarification that the first part of the proposed change and adding Republic of China (Taiwan) are different approaches to address the same issue Geographyinitiative proposed here [87]. I proposed to add Republic of China (Taiwan) as an official name in the first sentence earlier. After Ythlev expressed said that it would be ridiculously redundent, Phlar proposed another approach, to avoid mentioning the official name and leave it to the Etymology section, leading to the proposed changes at the top of this section.--Visaliaw (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Early settlementEdit

I have again reverted an edit pasting in text from the Taiwanese indigenous peoples article.

For a start, the pasted text does not fit where it is inserted: it begins with "their ancestors", which in the context of the source article referred to Taiwanese indigenous peoples, but is here placed immediately after mention of a paleolithic culture. The spliced text "Austronesian peoples are believed to be the ancestors of today's Taiwanese indigenous peoples, whose languages belong to the Austronesian language family" is just nonsense.

Moreover, "living on Taiwan for approximately 5,500 years in relative isolation before ... the 17th century" does not contradict the archaeological evidence that neolithic farmers arrived on the island about 6,000 years ago (the Dapenkeng culture). Indeed the Taiwanese indigenous peoples article leaves the question hanging.

Finally, it is already stated in the article that the Taiwan is believed to be the urheimat of the Austronesian languages. Kanguole 10:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion that the Taiwanese indigenous people are "most likely from mainland China," is in contradiction to the Taiwanese indigenous peoples Wikipedia page in which the Taiwan page sites as a reference. The Taiwanese indigenous Wikipedia page states, "Taiwanese indigenous peoples are Austronesian peoples," and mainland China is not listed on the Austronesian peoples Wikipedia page as a place where Austronesian people come from. There is a genetic study done in 2014 to back up this claim. Archeology interpretations are not as accurate as genetic testing.
1. Taiwan Wikipedia page references Taiwan indigenous peoples Wikipedia page for origins of the earliest Taiwan people.
2. Taiwan indigenous peoples Wikipedia page says that they are Austronesian people and references the Austronesian peoples page.
3. Austronesian peoples Wikipedia page has a map that does not include mainland China.
Your statement:
""Austronesian peoples are believed to be the ancestors of today's Taiwanese indigenous peoples, whose languages belong to the Austronesian language family" is just nonsense."
Where is the non factual part of the sentence? Placement is a matter of taste for each individual writer.
The Dapenkeng culture Wikipedia page, which you site, further supports my point. I will quote from that page. "Most scholars believe this culture was brought across the Taiwan Strait by the ancestors of today's Taiwanese aborigines, speaking early Austronesian languages." The page clearly says that it was only the culture that was brought over by Taiwanese aborigines and does not mention anyone coming to Taiwan from mainland China.
Taiwan being the urheimat of Austronesian languages further supports that the Taiwanese indigenous people did not come from mainland China, as the Austronesian people are all from the south of Taiwan. :People from mainland China are not Austronesian people.
~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dog Star 122333 (talkcontribs) 12:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan being the urheimat of Austronesian languages means that Austronesian languages spread from Taiwan (around 4,000–5000 years ago) to island Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The genetic study confirms that. It says nothing about how the people got to Taiwan before that.
As for Dapenkeng, you have quoted the sentence "Most scholars believe this culture was brought across the Taiwan Strait by the ancestors of today's Taiwanese aborigines, speaking early Austronesian languages." But you seem not to have understood it. Perhaps you think Paleolithic Taiwanese went on study tours to the mainland and brought back Neolithic culture. You won't find any literature to support that. Rather the consensus is that Dapenkeng represented an influx of people, and was unconnected with the Paleolithic population.
The problem with "Austronesian peoples are believed to be the ancestors of today's Taiwanese indigenous peoples, whose languages belong to the Austronesian language family" is that "Austronesian peoples" are just people who speak Austronesian languages, so the sentence is a pointless tautology. Kanguole 12:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted this addition over similar concerns. I'm not sure what the Blust source is, but if it's from 1999 I don't think it counts as recent research. I am also concerned about drawing too definite a connection between language and genetics. They're often related, but I don't think the source provided supports certainty in the text. (Others may.) CMD (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There's a broad consensus the homeland of early Austronesian peoples is Taiwan, but it's also believed that they have descended from ancestral populations in coastal mainland southern China. See Austronesian_peoples#Neolithic_China. --DRIZZLE (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
That first statement has broad census, that second on only has a bare consensus and there are significant opposing viewpoints (primarily because there is almost no evidence thats what happened, it just makes the most sense). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Putting The Republic of China before Taiwan.Edit

Currently the first line is: "Taiwan, officially known as The Republic of China..."

I believe a more correct way is: "The Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan..."

If you look at the United States wiki article it starts as: "The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or America..." it doesn't go "The United States (U.S. or US), officially known as the United States of America (USA)..."

I'm new to editing on wiki, this is my first new section post under the "talk". Thanks for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talkcontribs) 21:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I like this idea. It would render moot the question about the 'official' name currently under discussion in the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Proposed Change talk sections above, since there would be no need to label a name as 'official' in the first sentence (the official names could still be addressed under Etymology). Phlar (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I endorse the idea. PrussianOwl (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[1], but of course there could be exceptions if necessary.
The MOS also says When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, so Republic of China (Taiwan) should be mentioned in the lead in some way.--Visaliaw (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you should tell the editors of the pages on France, Russia, China, Iran, Bolivia, Australia, etc. that they are writing their articles the wrong way round, then. The vast majority of country articles start with the shorter name. Not to mention that virtually all country articles are at those shorter names and that the name that matches the page title should come before any other name. --Khajidha (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not every article has to conform to the same format. Like the MOS states, exceptions are allowed where they make sense and this could just be one of those exceptions. Horserice (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We had this article at Republic of China for years and it led to nothing but argument and confusion because "Republic of China" is just not commonly used in English. Putting that name first will simply increase reader confusion. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As a simple matter of readability, sentences should start with the already established information, and introduce new information at the end of the sentence. Do not astonish the reader with something unexpected, and then explain the riddle, not in non-fiction writing anyway. This means that the title term, Taiwan, should come first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe: Biography articles are written in the opposite way though, with a subject’s full name starting the article even if their common name is something else. Why do some articles on geopolitical entities use the opposite principle of starting with the common name? — MarkH21talk 03:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    This principle of sentence structure and readability applies generally. Do biography articles get it wrong? I think it is OK for the biography full name to be longer, as long as it contains the COMMONNAME. Eg. Madonna (entertainer). Looking around, I think Lady Gaga: Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta .... is doing it wrong. It induces a moment of confusion as astonishment when the name mismatches the title. People coming to this article think they are coming to Taiwan, it is the url and the hovertext, and the lede sentence should reflect that, for the sake of ease of reading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a good idea. As demonstrated by Khajidha above, the proposal is based on an erroneous rationale (namely the assumption that there is something incorrect with the current version). And per SmokeyJoe, the current version is more reader-friendly. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Smokeyjoe @HaeB There is something wrong with the original sentence. By making The Republic of China come first it will better inform the lay reader of the actual political status/realities of what is The Republic of China/Taiwan. Many people think Taiwan and China are completely different countries. This couldn't be further from the true. Taiwan is China. Or rather they claim to be the legitimate China the rightful political entity of China. I have met many public laypersons who are ignorant of this fact. In fact I have even met Taiwanese people themselves who are so confused about the topic that they have claimed 'I am not Chinese, I'm Taiwanese' which is utterly absurd because they are not only of Han Chinese ethnicity but their government literally claims to be 'China'. But let's keep the discussions going. Henryhe43 (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The only thing wrong here is your inability to understand that they are separate countries. And have been for over 70 years, regardless of whatever the governments claim. And one can be of Han Chinese ethnicity without being "Chinese" in the sense of what country you are from. --Khajidha (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@khajidha I never said they weren't separate countries. They definitely are two separate polities. However they both claim to be the rightful China, this is a fact. It was due to international pressure that The Republic of China began to simply refer to itself as Taiwan because after Communist China won the civil war the international community threw its support behind Communist China/People's Republic of China. Did you know that it was actually The Republic of China/Taiwan that originally had a seat on the United Nations security council? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talkcontribs) 14:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant. In English language usage the ROC is Taiwan and the PRC is China. So a Taiwanese citizen saying they are not Chinese makes perfect sense.--Khajidha (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Khajidha HAHAHAHA. dude, a Taiwanese person saying he is not chinese is literally like a Texan saying "I'm not an American, I'm a texan". Or a english person saying "I'm not british, I'm english." On a more serious note. Taiwan is not the name of a country. The name of the country is Republic of China. Taiwan is literally just the name of the island the Republic of China moved their base of operations to after they lost the war.

Nope. It is ALSO the name used by the English speaking world for the country "Republic of China". --Khajidha (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@khajidha Yeah I know that's what they use, but the english speaking world from britain and USA on down is racist so why would i take their advice? Also I'm getting tired feel free to reply to me I'll read whatever but I won't reply till probably tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talkcontribs) 22:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If English speaking countries are racist, then why are you using the Racist Wikipedia? After all, the French Wikipedia is written for French speakers, the Thai Wikipedia is written for Thai speakers, and the Racist Wikipedia is written for English (racist) speakers. Also, there is nothing wrong with Han Chinese like Lee Kuan Yew (Singaporean), Penny Wong (Australian) or Andrew Yang (American) from hypothetically saying that they're "not Chinese", because contextually they are referring to nationality (國籍), not ethnicity (民族). And there is nothing wrong with a person from Scotland saying "I am Scottish, not British" or a person from Barcelona saying "I am Catalan, not Spanish". Personal identity is an individual matter, not a group matter. There are millions of Quebecois who believe that they are proudly Canadian; there are also millions of Quebecois who believe that they are not Canadians, but rather associate themselves with a Quebecois identity instead; how is this wrong? --benlisquareTCE 05:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Benlisquare: Just a note that Henryhe43 has been indefinitely blocked, so they will not be able to respond for the time being. — MarkH21talk 05:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't think to check. Thanks. --benlisquareTCE 06:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ For example:
    This Manual of Style is a style guide containing ...


    This style guide, known as the Manual of Style, contains ...

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020我是誰Edit

2402:7500:54C:100B:2D77:CD74:631D:360A (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute/CaradhrasAiguo's denial of consensusEdit

This small change [88] by Stephen Balaban (talk · contribs) seems to be supported by the now closed state vs. country RfC. It was reverted by CaradhrasAiguo using the explanation “MOS:RETAIN” which is either extremely misleading or entirely incompetent as it has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand. Upon reverting their revert and letting them know that MOS:RETAIN most certainly is the wrong link [89] they reverted again this time with the explanation "RfC was about first sentence, not how to refer to other territories” which doesnt make any more sense than the first explanation, the RfC was about how to refer to Taiwan universally and there are no "territories" being described (maybe if we said HK was a neighbor there would be a point here, but we don’t) so *none* of the explanation makes sense. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was in reference to the ROC only (not other polities), and I mis-spoke in regards to "territories", as "regions" would be a fine substitute. You would do well to stop baiting discussion into irrelevant territory lest be viewed as WP:NOTHERE. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
You still haven’t said why you object to the changes though, certainly nothing in the RfC precludes them from being made. Are you still arguing that MOS:RETAIN justifies your revert? By the way Taiwan, China, Japan, and the Philippines are countries not regions so I don’t understand what your objection to "Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the north-west, Japan to the north-east, and the Philippines to the south.” nor "Taiwan is among the most densely populated countries, and is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN).” as region wouldn’t be a suitable substitute there either... Did you misspeak again when you said you meant region? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The scope of RfCs or any other discussion has be properly defined or the above (typical) filibustering nonsense will rear its head. The among the most densely populated...that is not a member of the United Nations is WP:TRIVIA. And, as an aside, yes, "region" is an admissible description for nation states per Cambridge Dictionary Intermediate English. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
What is your objection to changing state to country? Also that RfC was on what to call Taiwan wikipedia wide, not just in the first sentence. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
^^Big time {{cn}} on that one. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Don’t dodge the question, you made a revert and then edit warred when your revert was reverted... Why? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The RFC was also not about the first sentence, it was universal "There has been much debate and no consensus formed over whether to use the term "country" or "state" when referring to Taiwan.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The closer was also crystal clear "Taking all of that into account, I don't see the strength of argument in favor of "state" being strong enough to overcome the numeric consensus (in fact I'd say country has a stronger argument). As such, I'm closing this RfC as finding consensus that it is best to refer to Taiwan as a "country" rather than as a "state”.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Referring to Taiwan as a country and its neighbors as states is just poor writing.--Khajidha (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, and it's why I changed it. I don't think this RfC covers every article about Taiwan, but it covers this one surely. And to mix and match terms, especially in the same paragraph or two, is messy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Worded as it is was and with participation topping 50 editors on the talk page of the main page for a subject like this means the consensus applies wikipedia wide. Taiwan can of course be referred to in specific contexts with any of a range of other terms, but what changed was a wikipedia wide consensus to in general use “state” when referring to Taiwan/ROC to a consensus to use “country” instead. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ugh, do we really need to clarify everything to the letter? 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 Here's my !vote for neighbouring countries include X, Y and Z, with the rationale that mixing usage within the lede looks tacky and unprofessional. 🙄🙄 --benlisquareTCE 07:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

International image, liberties and human rights in TaiwanEdit

I think there should be a paragraph about the international relations or unofficial relation or diplomatic relations of Taiwan with regards to the country's current international image. I think there should also be paragraph about human right and liberties in Taiwan as the Asia's most human rights friendly nation. Kushal2024 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a whole section on international relations. If you have sources linking the relations with international image, that information may fit there and/or in the dedicated articles. Human rights are touched on in a couple of places with in the article, what information do you feel is missing? CMD (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan's status quoEdit

An extensive RfC on this matter concluded just over a week ago. It can be found above. CMD (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We (hopefully) all know that currently, Taiwan has a weird status. It really isn't a country, but nor is it really a part of China. I have searched many sources to find out more, and only about 18 countries formally recognize Taiwan as a country, and none of them are particularly influencing countries. If you search up if Taiwan is a country, you immediately get a "yes" from Wikipedia. since Taiwan is not recognized by most countries in the world as a country, I would suggest changing it to something that does not give a straight answer, as to avoid any complications. I would suggest saying something along the lines of "The political status of Taiwan is very complicated and may change" and then maybe a link to Cross-Strait relations. But what do I know? And also, some people may find it offensive that Wikipedia, one of the largest information sources, says that Taiwan is a country. Also also, this kind-of-sort-of fuels bias that China is everyone's enemy and such.

NickleSonic (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Its a country, if saying that offends someone thats not our problem. Wikipedia is not censored, not giving a straight answer to avoid any complications is the sort of geopolitical bullshit that has no place here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"I have searched many sources to find out more, and only about 18 countries formally recognize Taiwan as a country, and none of them are particularly influencing countries." So? How does that affect the reality of the Taiwanese people? They live in the place and interact with its government just the same way the people in any country interact with the government of that country. --Khajidha (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a country. Taiwan is merely the name of the island the Republic of China decided to move their base of operation to after they lost the war. The ethnic Han Chinese, the ones who lost the war, then stole the island from the Taiwanese aborigines.Malcolmxhero (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's a country, state, commonwealth, sovereign state, continent, or exoplanet. It doesn't matter if it does not fit the definition of a country and that universities would teach it as something else. What matters is that more sources found through Google call it a country, and that after a large and fair RfC with many participants, "country" was the word of choice. That's how it works here and this is a done deal unless something changes with Taiwan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Please note that there are also many sources call it a province of China. Therefore Wikipedia should handle this issue in accordance with its core content policy WP:NPOV. In other words, using "country"—which is based on just part of the sources—is unfair and does not conform to WP:NPOV. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I’ll point out that de facto (and its synonyms) is used by most RSes when describing in more detail, and it’s an accurate descriptor. Using de facto in the article may be the optimal solution as most representative of RSes and satisfying NPOV. — MarkH21talk 21:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020Edit

change "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia." to "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is an autonomous state in East Asia. It disputedly claims mainland China and Mongolia as its territory. The ZengZhibin (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

We just went through an RfC about state and country, and country won out. It will not be changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Taiwan's official nameEdit

The Taiwanese government website says Republic of China (Taiwan) is its official name. [90] News articles describe Republic of China as official name. In Wikipedia, should we describe the official name as Republic of China (Taiwan) or Republic of China, or both?

Previous discussions: Talk:Taiwan#Republic_of_China_(Taiwan), Talk:Taiwan#Full_Protection_is_not_necessary,Talk:Taiwan#Proposed change.Visaliaw (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Republic of China. Websites are not official documents. Passport nationality field reads "Republic of China". Ythlev (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I summarize the usage of the two names mentioned in previous discussions here, feel free to add more.
Republic of China: Passport nationality field[91], English translation of the constitution articles[92]
Republic of China (Taiwan): Passport cover[93], English translation of the constitution title[94] , Resident Certificate[95], websites of some government agencies, international trade agreements[96][97]--Visaliaw (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The link for the English translation of the Constitution articles provided uses "Republic of China" sans parenthetical for every single translation. The use of (Taiwan) serves as a clarification, rather than as part of the constitutional name. CMD (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. Visaliaw just does not get it. Maybe they never learned about parentheses in school. Ythlev (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It is clear that (Taiwan) doesn't serve as a clarification in this page [98].--Visaliaw (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It’s OR to assert that the parenthetical isn’t used as a clarification for its one in-text mention and one in-image mention on the “About Taiwan” page. — MarkH21talk 16:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOR:This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. And asserting that the parenthetical is used as a clarification is not less OR either. --Visaliaw (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
If that's genuinely your take, then I have to say I don't think you really understand the function and language of that policy. You wish to change the consensus version of a piece of content and that means the WP:ONUS is on you to prove that yours is the interpretation more consistent with the WP:WEIGHT of the sources overall, and that your position is not based on your own interpretation of the meaning and relevance of the content of primary sources (i.e. WP:original research) no matter how plain/obvious/superficial you find that interpretation to be. If you cannot provide secondary sourcing to support your position, it almost certainly does not belong in the article, particularly where you would seek to supplant a version of the content that is supported by uncountable reliable WP:secondary sources. Snow let's rap 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
From this [99] primary source, it shows Republic of China (Taiwan) in the official name field in the chart. This source is clear and no additional interpretation is needed. This source does not mention anything about clarification, so saying that the parathensis part in this source is for clarification is original research. --Visaliaw (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:OR doesn’t apply to talk pages, but it applies to the naming that you are trying to apply to the article (which is not a talk page). It’s also silly to argue that the refutation of OR is OR. If I make up theory X, it’s not OR for you to point out that my theory isn’t directly supported by RSes. — MarkH21talk 06:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I did not make up any theory. I was repeating what the primary reliable source is saying.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Invited by the bot. Sounds like "Republic of China" is official but very confusing for the average reader. Suggest saying what the official name is but elsewhere the parenthetical clarification is fine. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Adopt the usage most prominent amongst the reliable WP:secondary sources. (Summoned by bot) In this case, that would seem to be 'Republic of China', with no parenthetical. Regardless, the outcome is the one supported by direct usage in secondary RS, not a determination made by one of our own editors (or a even a group of editors) based on their own WP:original research vis-a-vis primary documents and their interpretation thereof. Honestly, this one is kind of Wikipedia 101 and I'd urge anyone recommending their take on the meaning of a field in a passport of RS should review the relevant policies in this area and back away from that assertion as a WP:SNOW matter, because I can't imagine an outcome endorsing that view ever being validated by an RfC, making this a dubious use of community time. Snow let's rap 14:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The primary source [100] and secondary sources disagree. WP:PSTS:Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. The policy does not say secondary RS overrides primary RS.--Visaliaw (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, there is an overwhelming preference to base our content on secondary sources wherever possible, especially over our own editorial interpretations of the content of primary sources: this is a principle mentioned and expounded upon at numerous different levels of granularity and context in the very same policy WP:NOR that you linked to a subsection of above, as well as other major content policies such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and is indeed a core and overwhelmingly supported principle of community consensus on sourcing and avoiding original research that has dominated our process going back almost to the inception of the project. With very few niche exceptions, a summarization of a large volume of secondary sources is always going to take precedence over how our editors personally interpret the significance of a primary document. Without meaning to cause offense, this is about as straight-forward a sourcing call as you ever going to find on en.Wikipedia. Snow let's rap 19:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Republic of China: On the basis of RS usage, parenthetical clarification, Chinese usage, and redundancy:
    Historically, RSes unanimously stated that Republic of China is the official name. Recent RSes still report very clearly about Republic of China being the official name without mention of "Taiwan" in parentheses or otherwise (bolding mine):

    Taiwan is a de facto independent state whose official name is the Republic of China.
    — Article from Foreign Policy, 8 May 2020

    Taiwan -- officially the Republic of China -- has been ruled separately from the mainland since 1949 after the Nationalists lost a civil war to the Communists and fled to the island to set up a rival government.
    — Article from the Bangkok Post, 20 May 2020

    Tsai says Taiwan is an independent state called the Republic of China, its official name, and does not want to be part of the People's Republic of China.
    — Article from Reuters, 20 May 2020

    Tsai says Taiwan is already an independent country called the Republic of China, its official name.
    — Article from The Guardian, 24 May 2020

    Taiwan is formally referred to as the Republic of China (ROC)
    — Article from The Diplomat, 29 May 2020

    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued instructions on name cards that eschewed “Taiwan.” The ministry is not using the word “Taiwan” on name cards of government officials stationed overseas, sources said, citing an internal notification from the ministry sent to Taiwan’s embassies and consulate offices on Friday.
    — Article from the Taipei Times, 16 June 2020

    Tsai says Taiwan is already an independent country called the Republic of China, its official name.
    — Article from Reuters, 16 June 2020

    There isn’t clear evidence against the parenthetical being a clarification rather than the official name.
    Others have pointed out the viewpoint that the only "official name" is the Chinese name 中華民國, on the basis of official government documents (e.g. the Constitution of the Republic of China). Those four Chinese characters are generally translated into English as Republic of China by reliable sources.
    It would be slightly redundant and awkward to write Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (Taiwan). — MarkH21talk 16:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Republic of China (Taiwan) The government website [101] is a primary reliable source, which clearly states the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan). Since the parenthetical is in the official name field in the chart, it is clear that the parenthetical here is part of the official name rather than a clarification.
Now the primary RS and secondary RS (news articles) disagree. WP:PSTS:Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.
The official name is by definition decided by the government, so the government website is a more reliable source of the official name than news articles on this issue.
Also, take MarkH21's sources above as example, four of the seven news sentences are inaccurate. (No. 3,4,7):Tsai's interview video is here [102]. From 1m30s, it is clear that Tsai said the word Taiwan after Republic of China, which the news reporters omitted, showing that those news articles are not reliable when it comes to distinguishing between "Republic of China" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)". (No. 6) is denied by the government[103], and the government spokesperson said 'Republic of China (Taiwan)' is being used on all official documents at MOFA foreign offices in the countries with which Taiwan has diplomatic relations.
If the community consensus does not support the primary RS here could override secondary RS, the view of the Taiwanese government that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is official name should still be presented, as the government's view on its own official name is significant. WP:NPOV:neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. So in this case we should mention both names.--Visaliaw (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC); updated 06:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The article you linked regarding the Focus Taiwan article on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and name cards affirms that the issued template

highlights Taiwan's formal name [...] Taiwan's formal title, Republic of China, has been a sensitive issue [...]
— Aforementioned article from Focus Taiwan, 16 June 2020

MarkH21talk 05:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, and the news reporter's written sentence disagree with what the MOFA spokesperson actually said in the press conference. The video is here[104], if you could understand Chinese, in 7m13s the spokesperson said Republic of China (Taiwan) is the formal name.--Visaliaw (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The news article wasn’t quoting anybody where it is written: Taiwan's formal title, Republic of China, has been a sensitive issue domestically and internationally due to the complexity of cross-Taiwan Strait relations..
It’s also not like the article hasn’t said In some contexts, especially ROC government publications, the name is written as "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China/Taiwan", or sometimes "Taiwan (ROC)" for five years as Chipmunkdavis pointed out below. — MarkH21talk 06:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Republic of China bot invitation Seems the overwhelming preponderance of secondary and tertiary RS refer to RoC. Whether or not a representative says they are chair of the Judean People's Front or the People's Front of Judea, if the Carthage Times, the Roma Gazette and the Constantinople Clarion have for the last 20 odd years referred to them as the Naughty Boys, well...apologies to Monty Python --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Include both and explain the situation. Admittedly most reliable sources describe the official name as "Republic of China", but the government is by default the the most reliable source on its own name. The definition of "official" involves having approval from a government or other authoritative body. What secondary sources describe the name as doesn't actually matter as much as what the government deems its own name to be. We should include both and explain that while most sources consider the official English name to be the "Republic of China", the Taiwanese government says "Republic of China (Taiwan)". We also shouldn't forget that the name is central to a political dispute between the ROC and the PRC; being as the mainland government believes in a One-China policy where they want the island of Taiwan to be considered a part of China while the government that's introduced the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" name wants to distinguish itself. We shouldn't endorse a specific point of view by only including one name. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts here: First off, I think that the suggestion explaining the nature of the debate in some form within the article itself, as suggested by yourself and North8000 above,may be a reasonable compromise/work-around here. But I suspect for the parties who were originally debating the content here, the devil will be in the details: for example, I don't see a lot of support for "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in the initial lead sentence (if in the lead at all) amongst the perspectives lodged above. So if we are going to move in that direction, it might be useful to discuss precise language to try to get everyone on the same page. Second, while you are correct that there is nominative political element to this topic, I don't it aligns in quite the fashion you describe: historically the phrase "The Republic of China" was exactly how the people of Taiwan distinguished themselves from the "The people's Republic of China, and signaled their sense of historical, political, and cultural continuity with the earlier and more expansive iteration of the ROC under the Kuomintang.
Tawain is actually originally a colonial ethnonym that passed into common usage for the island as a whole and became in particular the preferred term of reference in a global sense and among foreigners (after the earlier 'Formosa' serving a similar role). This current discussion is actually the first time I have ever heard someone suggest that it might be important to add the Tawain in parenthesis to sufficiently express the formal name of the country: again, historically, 'Republic of China' itself was considered a differential statement for purposes of distinguishing the region from the rest of China under the One Country, Two Systems principle. It could very well be that the extra level of distinction of adding the parenthetical afterwards to provide even more conceptual distance is a development amongst those who favour very strong autonomy for the island (which is to say, a good portion of the Tawainese). That is certainly the sense that I get about what is motivating Visaliaw's perspective. Which is not an outlook I care to belittle or minimize: if that's the trend, it probably deserves some discussion here.
But where I part ways with his perspective (and to some degree yours) is with regard to what standard of proof policy requires of us as to what the "official" name of the island/administrative region/country/whatever actually is: yes of course the government itself is a major player in what that WP:COMMONNAME is deemed to be--it goes without saying. But that doesn't mean that sourcing standards go out the window: one still needs reliable, independent sources in order to establish what name the government itself prefers and it is still very much WP:Original research/WP:synthesis to say "Well, I've looked at documents X, Y, and Z and determined that the name is [whatever]". That is where Visaliaw's push falters and (with genuine respect to the rest of your argument and support for your suggestion we discuss this issue in the article at length) I'd say that where your position is in error as a policy matter as well. He can't just supplant his personal preference/interpretation based on his reading of those primary documents against a mountain of reliable secondary sources, especially for purposes of the lead sentence. If "Republic of China (Tawain)" is really the "official" name of the country, it should be exceedingly trivial to produce numerous high quality secondary sources that support that claim.
Otherwise I am inclined to say our policies argue for our treating this development as something akin to a WP:neologism. Now even if that's the case, there's a strong argument to be made for laying all of this out explicitly in the article, just to clear up any potential confusion for our readers. But a stronger standard is demanded for reworking the lead sentence or the lead generally. If this is a clear new trend (or an older one I am merely oblivious to, for that matter) in how the Taiwanese people and/or their government prefer to identify themselves, then by all means, let us make this perfectly clear. But the mere assertion and some hand-waving at some personal documents do not obviate Visaliaw from providing sufficient sourcing, as the proponent of this change, particularly if they want to do a radical re-write of the primary terminology employed in the article. All of that said, let's see if we cant find language that both sides of the original dispute here can get behind, consistent with your suggestion. Snow let's rap 21:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The link provided in the RFC question is a reliable primary source that shows Republic of China (Taiwan) in the official name field. It does not require any additional interpretion from me. As for independent sources, "'Republic of China (Taiwan)' is being used on all official documents at MOFA foreign offices in the countries with which Taiwan has diplomatic relations and in some others,"[105] --Visaliaw (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
That’s just another example of an article that says that ROC is the official name: Taiwan's formal title, Republic of China, has been a sensitive issue [...]MarkH21talk 06:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The sentence I quoted are words from the spokesperson, and it is a reliable, independent source in order to establish what name the government itself prefers as Snow Rise requested. The video of the press conference is here[106], if you could understand Chinese, in 7m13s the spokesperson said Republic of China (Taiwan) is the formal name. The sentence MarkH21 cited is written by the news reporter himself without providing any source, and it disagrees with the government spokesperson. The government spokesperson is an expert on the official name issue, and her words are more reliable than the news reporter's belief.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The Executive Yuan does not unequivocally represent the state. It was against decriminalising adultery, but the court ruled it unconstitutional. Can we still say "Taiwan supports criminalising adultery"? Ythlev (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
We could say "Taiwan supported criminalising adultery". The executive yuan is not against decriminalising adultery any more.[107]--Visaliaw (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
"尊重" means "respect" or "acknowledge", not "agree".[1] Ythlev (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The executive yuan still released the 5 prisoners. This is getting off topic. The court did not rule about the official name so this is an inappropriate analogy.--Visaliaw (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not off topic. The point is that the Executive Yuan is only one branch of government. It can have its own political positions, but it does not fully represent the state. If the next president is KMT and removes the page you keep citing, would the official name have changed? The official name is still defined by the constitution which although only in Chinese, its literal translation and what's printed on the passport, unchanged between administrations, is "Republic of China". Ythlev (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say the official name have changed if the next president decides to use a different name.--Visaliaw (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
So the official name can change every four years? Heck if the president decides to use a different name every week, the official name changes every week?Taiwan is a constitutional state based on rule of law. Ythlev (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The constitution is in Chinese and it does not specify the English official name, so it is up to the government to decide. Neither is Republic of China a literal translation of the consitutional name 中華民國, there is a subtle difference between Chunghua and China. A majority of Taiwanese people would agree their country is 中華民國 and their country is not China. It is reasonable in Chinese but is ridiculous if you translate 中華民國 into Republic of China.--Visaliaw (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
there is a subtle difference between Chunghua and China. Which is what? It is reasonable in Chinese but is ridiculous if you translate 中華民國 into Republic of China Maybe not literally (words mean what we say they mean but whatever), there is plenty of evidence that it translates to Republic of China, such as this document,[108] or its seat in the UN.[109] It is the only universal name. Ythlev (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Chunghua (Zhonghua) and China is the same. Zhonghua Minguo is Republic of China, Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo is People's Republic of China. It's a perfect analogy. I think you are confusing the difference between Zhonghua en Zhongguo; technically synonyms (meaning "China"), but Zhonghua has a connotation of China as a culture and Zhongguo has a connotation of the China as a country. De wafelenbak (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@De wafelenbak: The difference is Chunghua(中華) could mean Chinese in the either cultural, ethnic, or political sense, so the country is not necessarily China, while (Republic of) China means Chinese clearly in the political sense. The difference is exemplified above.--Visaliaw (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Include both or just Republic of China (Taiwan) I agree with many of Chess’s points. I also want to add that this was very very recently a matter of dispute within Taiwan and according to the Taipei Times the Spokeswoman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said ""The nation’s formal documents for other countries — those with formal ties and some without — used “Republic of China (Taiwan)” as the nation’s name, she said.[110] Given that the whole “official” thing is arbitrary and up to the country I think we should either use both and note the dispute or just their current preferred English styling. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the extra context here Jack--that is very helpful to confirm that this a recent widespread debate, and it certainly adds yet more impetus to add content to the article which describes the current multiplicity of terminology. That source also addresses the need for secondary citation to support the parenthetical name, a good first step in bridging the gap between the two positions. Snow let's rap 23:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be noted that the debate in Taiwan this time around was between those who preferred Republic of China (Taiwan) as the name and those who preferred just Taiwan... Nobody was really arguing for Republic of China although that constituency does exist. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's interesting--it would seem there are two different debates that are both parallel and overlapping: if I am reading that source correctly, the local government has largely charted a conservative course when it comes to the terminology, preferring the traditional 'Republic of China' over 'Republic of China (Taiwan)', which some have begun adding to their documents, regardless. But it is also clear that there is no real consensus in the government about which of the two is most appropriate, which is more or less what you would expect given the divided perspectives within it generally. At the same time, in the popular sphere, the debate is to the side of that one, with the two options being debated being, as you noted, the 'Republic of China (Taiwan)' and simply Taiwan. So if I read this all correctly and work it into past historical context as I understand it for the province/nation, there is a continuum, that looks basically like this:
[Terms preferred by those who favour increased political union with China] 'Peoples Republic of China' (PRC) <----> 'Republic of China' (ROC) <----> 'Republic of China (Taiwan)' <----> 'Taiwan' [Terms preferred by those favouring increased political autonomy for the region].
...and at any given point and in any particular social context of recent time, the debate between any two people or groups of people might have been between any two of those four terms (with 'Peoples Republic of China'/'PRC' probably still being unpalatable to a majority of Taiwanese, and thus the largest outlier, but still in play with those who think of themselves as culturally Chinese first and foremost (this group not being the majority, but not being an altogether tiny segment of the local population either). Would you say that is more or less an accurate summary of the situation and how the various terms align politically, as you understand it? This would require a fair bit of care to accurately impart to the reader, but I think it should be entirely doable at the same time, with enough massaging of the text--and probably we can get the article to a state where everybody is vaguely satisfied (though probably not altogether thrilled) with how the competing titles are described. Snow let's rap 00:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
There is also the third traditional perspective that is largely unpopular nowadays, but has not been 100% dismissed by the government, that they are the ROC because they still lay claim to all of Mainland China (and therefore do not necessarily seek closer relations with the PRC but also do not accept being solely Taiwan).
Amongst all of the names though, ROC is by far the most common RS-attributed official name, even among recent sources in the midst of the new ROC (Taiwan) movement. — MarkH21talk 01:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Taking all of the evidence together, I'm inclined to say that the lead sentence should continue to use 'Republic of China (ROC)' in the lead sentences--since we have to pick the most standard and ubiquitous term for the opening of the article, which cannot start with a wordy discussion involving four name variants before we have even established the subject matter of the article--but that, at the same time, the article needs to do much, much more to discuss the variant names and the various political and cultural implications of those preferences. Whether that takes place later in the lead section or in its own expressly titled section early in the article, I think we ought to discuss. I do think the topic needs to be fairly prominent fairly early on though, so as not to confuse the many different readers who may come here with different notions of what the name and status of the country/region is. Snow let's rap 03:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Given that you completely misinterpreted the “evidence” (literally 360 degrees, you got it backwards) maybe you should re-evaluate your position... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
360 degrees is directly forwards :) — MarkH21talk 16:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Lol you’re right! Thats what I get for editing before coffee haha. I do think they’ve completely misinterpreted the source, although how that happened is a little confusing because the source isn't ambiguous. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I can see how it can be confusing, since the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued templates without Taiwan on them. But yes, the current government generally prefers the parenthetical over the traditional nomenclature, in contrast to earlier governments. — MarkH21talk 16:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
"if I am reading that source correctly, the local government has largely charted a conservative course when it comes to the terminology, preferring the traditional 'Republic of China' over 'Republic of China (Taiwan)’” Yeah you read that wrong, the current government prefers Republic of China (Taiwan) and uses that on documents, not the other way around. There is clear consensus within the government, you clearly misunderstand. You got it backwards, does that change your conclusions at all? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid not, because it's still a rather minor point in the overall analysis, and it would still be WP:OR for us to use primary documents to force a major change on the article that is contrary to the WP:WEIGHT provided by numerous secondary sources. Besides, even aside from the argument being OR, I'm not sure it's even a good, rational argument. Here's what the source you provided says about the matter: The nation’s formal documents for other countries — those with formal ties and some without — used “Republic of China (Taiwan)” as the nation’s name, she said. (emphasis added) The nation's formal documents "for other countries": the reasoning behind adding the parenthetical here seems to be to make sure that diplomatic credentials, and other documents which the agents and officials of other countries come into contact with are not mistaken as being for the "other" Republic of China, the PRC. Which is entirely reasonable but not in itself proof that the nation has officially adopted the whole form as its name--most other internal government documents and official uses of the country's name continue to be simply "Republic of China", insofar as I can deduce. Even were that not the case, we would still need the WP:WEIGHT of the sources to shift to discussing any new standard in the nation's name; WP:OR does not just fly out the window as a policy because "we are really really sure we're right!" I'll repeat what I said above: if "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is really the current name of the nation/territory, it should be exceedingly easy to find numerous high quality secondary sources saying as much expressly and directly. Not sources with little tidbits we can WP:SYNTH together into the conclusion that this is the name: actual statements that this is the name, in enough volume to shift the analysis of the WP:WEIGHT of the sources overall.
All of that said, I want to be clear that I still strongly support discuss all of the various competing names in the article, at whatever length is necessary to clarify what those names are, who the stakeholders are that support them, and why the multiplicity exists. If it's causing confusion amongst editors who are not wholly unfamiliar with the relevant historical and political dimensions, it bears extra work to clarify for the average reader coming here to understand Taiwan as a topic, maybe for the first time. But we can't start the article with that discussion: it would be unwieldy and confusing for the reader. So insofar as we limit the name in that context, it's pretty clear what the balance of the sources use when they describe the nation's official name 'Republic of China'. And I don't really see how that's a problem, insofar as the actual title of the article is Taiwan, and will thus also be in that first sentence, no matter how we format it. Now, if you're looking for support on getting more than the one sentence that currently describes the overlapping names in the article, I'm with you. But if you want me to support a change everytime we use the nation's official name, I can't support that yet, as the evidentiary burden/weight analysis under Wikipedia's policies has quite clearly not been met, or even begun to be met. Snow let's rap 22:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Some of the primary sources directly support that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is the official name. Those primary sources are also reliable, published sources, so you cannot say that it is WP:OR only because it is based on primary sources. Also, when primary sources and secondary sources disagree, you could not completely disregard the primary sources without further justification, especially when some of the secondary sources has been demonstrated that they are not faithfully reporting the event. And your deduction is wrong, "most other internal government documents and official uses of the country's name continue to be simply Republic of China".This is not true. --Visaliaw (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Precisely why the argument you are forwarding is WP:OR has been explained at least six times by almost as many editors above, including myself twice, but I'm going to give this one more try. You keep insisting (frankly with a lot hand waving) that what you would be doing involves no interpretation of the source. But I'm sorry, that's just not true. You would be taking a primary document and deducing from the fact that it uses one particular way of referring to the country to mean that this is the "One, WP:TRUE name", despite a mountain of reliable secondary sources that say otherwise. I'm sorry, but that is just not how WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT/reliable sourcing work on this project. I'm sure it seems like the most natural, rational thing to you, but we have a different process, and being unwilling to quadruple the length of this post to explain all of the pragmatic editorial reasons why we do things in this way, I will instead summarize by saying this community feels that it makes content more reliable and neutral in the aggregate and prevents and endless cycle of bickering between people advocating for their own take on the meaning and significance of primary sources and what they mean.
Now, you keep insisting that primary sources have equal footing with secondary sources here, despite having been directed to numerous of our core policies that demonstrate that this is patently false. And even were it true, you're still fighting the sheer volume of secondary RS, from actual expert sources who are qualified under our policies to provide interpretations of primary sources; you, as an editor, are not allowed to insert your own opinion/deductions into the article in Wikipedia's voice. But don't feel slighted--that's true of any one of us. I understand how these concepts can feel counter-intuitive, when one is a new editor and sees something that feels fairly "obvious" to them but which they cannot as yet adequately source. But we have a maxim here: "verifiability, not truth". Our OR and SYNTH policies are meant to make this project both manageable and less prone to systemic biases by forbidding us from extrapolating our own conclusions from the sources--and it's not just that we need that breaking mechanism even when we are talking about something that seems obvious to us, but rather especially then. Snow let's rap 11:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
All of that said, I want to make some suggestions that might feel more constructive, even from your perspective. The RfC prompt does not truly identify what objectives you seek to have endorsed here, except perhaps to give a vague sense that you want all instances of one usage replaced with your preferred version. I think despite sticking to your guns rhetorically here, you must realize you are not gaining the support you need for your change; it is likely that this discussion will end with a consensus against your stance or at best a "no consensus" close, which is in practical terms the same thing, since the status quo version will be retained. So let's try to sharpen the talk about what changes would look like that might make the editors here, yourself hopefully included, broadly satisfied. I would argue that based on feedback so far, it is a non-starter to expect your preferred term to replace throughout the article or even in the lead sentence. However, I would like to suggest that regardless of whether you can eventually sway enough people over to that perspective, a starting place we might be able to get support for very quickly is the introduction of a new separate section which discusses the exact subject matter of this RfC: we can surely do better than a single sentence to describe the multiplicity of uses and (to the extent possible with secondary source support) the origins and implications of the variants. I believe this would be fairly useful to the reader, regardless of how the rest of this goes. Should we perhaps start there? Snow let's rap 11:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you think it is WP:OR. The chart in this source shows Republic of China (Taiwan) in the official name field. [111] I think this chart directly supports a/the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan). Do you disagree that this source directly supports a/the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)? Or are you saying that me choosing this source over secondary sources is WP:OR because my reasoning is my own deduction? If it is the second one, evaluating conflicting sources to determine which is more reliable is not original research, see Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources.
About primary sources, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD:"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher .Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources., along with the WP:PSTS shown above, suggests that the reliability of primary sources and secondary sources should be compared and discussed.
As for the alternative suggestion, I could agree avoid specifying the official name in the first sentence and discuss the matter in a new separate section.--Visaliaw (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
As for the alternative suggestion, I could agree avoid specifying the official name in the first sentence and discuss the matter in a new separate section.
Awesome, I am glad to hear that! For my part, I find it sometimes useful to start with the improvements that can be agreed upon and then work backwards towards the loggerheads of the content dispute: sometimes some of that problem can be ameliorated through work on the peripheral issues. I apologize for taking so long to respond here: it's been one of those weeks for me, I'm afraid!
Now, since I am not one of the original parties to the dispute, my initial inclination is to leave it to one of you who has been involved here longer to draft the first version of any additional text that might be added to the article (outside the lead) for the purpose of going into some extra detail about the variant names, their historic origins, and their contemporary meaning and significance to the various stake-holders. However, as I am also the person who suggested this is as the first step to resolving the deadlock, I am also perfectly willing to do some legwork to suggest an initial draft of such language, if you and the other involved parties would find that useful. Just let me know what your preference is, regarding suggesting the initial wording yourself or having someone else do it. Either way, I suggest we create a subsection of this thread to discuss this side-issue (which inter-relates with the RfC prompt but which is not a full answer to the question, in itself, no matter how well we word it). Snow let's rap 22:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The framing for this RfC is poor, falling foul of WP:RFCBRIEF. This is not a dispute between news articles and the Government. The actual constitution, as provided above, uses the name "Republic of China", as do numerous other sources, so the "news articles" framing is deeply misleading. Much of the rest of the discussion is based on various interpretations of WP:PRIMARY sources, which is inappropriate for such a topic. As for the include both comments, "Republic of China (Taiwan)" has already been included in this article for years, and no-one has suggested removing it. CMD (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    I didn’t even realize that the RfC wasn’t worded specifically for the first sentence of the lead. CMD is 100% correct that the article has contained the sentence

    In some contexts, especially ROC government publications, the name is written as "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China/Taiwan", or sometimes "Taiwan (ROC)".

    for five years now and does to some degree the point of Snow Rise that the use of the name should be mentioned fairly early in the article. — MarkH21talk 06:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Chipmunkdavis seems now to want to remove entirely any exposition in our article text of more recent naming developments...--BushelCandle (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, the cited sources don't directly support the claim of increasingly uses regarding in recent years, but that's a separate issue from this RfC. Open a separate talk section if you want to discuss that. — MarkH21talk 18:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
That's true - but it's still a rather petty deletion that subtracts rather than adds to the clarity of our exposition of our exposition for the typical reader...--BushelCandle (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This was explained in my edit summaries. Removing wp:original research is part of core Wikipedia policy, so if you feel it's petty then you need to take that up at WT:V not here. CMD (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Republic of China (Taiwan): I think we do our readers a disservice if we don't keep up to date.

In the absence of an institution like the Académie Française, the English language has a tendency to change and evolve more rapidly than other world languages, but Wikipedia should try and clarify both current and historical name useages.
(Personally, I was a bit perturbed when, at the whim of its ruling monarch, we changed almost overnight from using Swaziland to Eswatini. Using an opposite example, the Czech Republic is perhaps overdue for a change to the preferred nomenclature of its government: Czechia.)
The Taiwanese constitution was written a long time ago when Taiwanese politicians were more concerned about maintaining their Quixotic claims to be the true inheritors of Chinese imperial ambitions. It's probable that, if the current legislators were not constantly threatened with immediate invasion by their neighbouring great power if they dared to change their stance and official name of their country too drastically (to reflect the current reality), the official name of this modern democracy would have been changed a long time ago. --BushelCandle (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether they prefer another name is irrelevant because the discussion is about the official name. Ythlev (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
If that's true and that's what this discussion is about, then I don't know what we're still arguing about.
(I was trying to point out the political context in which the current government of Taiwan [elected in, what in the Taiwanese context is, a landslide result] has not chosen the snappier Taiwan Republic or just Taiwan as the official name of the democracy they govern. If this RfC is about what the official name really is in English, then the primary sources above establish indubitably what the current official name is: Republic of China (Taiwan)
The whole idea of "official" denotes that it is the current government that decides the official name and not some sloppy journalist or out-dated historian or imprecise translator. --BushelCandle (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The passport nationality field reads "Republic of China", and it is not by a journalist, historian, or translator. Ythlev (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I would have thought that the passport issuing authority is more concerned with the widest possible acceptance of their passport rather than arbitrating what the official name of their country is.
In any case, what is written in the passport nationality field of any passport is very poor evidence of what the official name of the country that issued it is. If my passport says that I'm "Australian", that doesn't necessarily mean that the official name of the country that issued it is no longer the Commonwealth of Australia. --BushelCandle (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Obviously what the field reads is not exactly what the official name is. Australia's is not "Australian". It is an indication. It also shows that the question is not "indubitable". Ythlev (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It was a UN member under the name: [112]. Ythlev (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Republic of China (Taiwan) seems more neutral to me. Félix An (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The RfC is not about what name is neutral. Ythlev (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Republic of China per everything that User:MarkH21 said. ESPECIALLY the redundancy part. --Khajidha (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Republic of China per analogy with People's Republic of China and because Taiwan isn't mentioned in the Chinese name. Unless the Taiwan government would give a legally binding regulation on the matter, we should stick with Republic of China. De wafelenbak (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Republic of China (Taiwan) People here overlooked the international treaties that the government have signed, which is more important to the government than passports and IDs. The Government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) has been signing treaties overwhelmingly using the name Republic of China (Taiwan) even during the Ma Ying-jeou administration between 2008 and 2016. Check the International Treaties Database maintained by Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Taiwan). Fizikanauk (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Within the article, there is certainly room for both of these names and the controversy concerning which one is official. However, if we're just talking about the opening paragraphs, we should just use Republic of China as the most common official name. Jediting1 (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Republic of China - We already know what the common name is; adding the common name again in parentheses beside the official name is redundant and awkward to read, especially in the lead paragraph. The primary function of placing something in parentheses is to provide clarification, what are we clarifying with "Taiwan, officially known as Republic of China (Taiwan), is a country in East Asia"? --benlisquareTCE 08:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Your reasoning assumes the official name is Republic of China and the parathensis is only for clarification and not part of the official name. However, this government published source [113] is saying Republic of China (Taiwan) is the official name. This source is already titled 'About Taiwan' and 'Taiwan Snapshot', if the parathenses here is only for clarification, what is it clarifying?
Also I don't think redundency is a good argument. If an official name makes the sentence redundent, we should still describe the name at it is, maybe changing the sentence/paragraph structure to avoid redundency. We shouldn't use redundency as a reason to decide which is the official name or reduce the due weight of that name, this is putting the cart before the horse. --Visaliaw (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "蔡清祥遺憾通姦罪違憲 在監5人晚間獲釋 | 社會 | 中央社 CNA". (in Chinese). Retrieved 17 June 2020.
  • Depends on the phrasing - the official English name is indeed Republic of China (Taiwan), because too much is lost in translation. Therefore, it shouldn’t say otherwise. However, from an aesthetic point of view, Republic of China probably is preferable in the first sentence. Maybe include the Chinese term in brackets, or invoke the literally translated official term in Chinese. And include a link to the relevant section below to read on for the pedants. Just don’t simply say it’s the official name. It’s not. Analogy may be the names of the state of Israel in English, Hebrew and Arabic. Medinat meant different things in different languages in different places in different times. EnTerbury (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I wonder, even if it were ever so slightly redundant on what is said later in the article, if we might be able to accommodate a footnote here very compactly and concisely describing the variance in names here. I mean, arguably that is really the one thing footnotes are good for: discussing a highly pedantic subtopic that is nevertheless potentially meaningful to a neutral treatment of the subject at hand. Perhaps that is some middle ground territory that could be agreed to here? Snow let's rap 12:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Throughout the course of this RfC, no secondary sources have been presented describing this particular variance in names. A neutral treatment requires WP:WEIGHT to be taken into account, and so far there just isn't much to account for. I actually wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some source out there discussing the issue, but the fact it's so difficult to find is an indication towards the lack of weight this viewpoint holds. CMD (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The definition of "official" involves agreed by the government or authority. If we only describe the official name as only Republic of China in the first sentence, we will mislead readers to believe that this name is the government's viewpoint. The primary reliable sources showing the government viewpoint is important and should be given sufficient weight to let readers understand the government's viewpoint.--Visaliaw (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
We have no sources that describe the government's viewpoint. All arguments made here in that regard have been editorial interpretations of very undetailed primary sources. CMD (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The primary sources publish by the government directly supports the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)[114]. I am not sure why you are still saying there are no sources after this source has been presented so many times in the discussion. We shouldn't treat these as viewpoints either. When the government says the government approved name is X, and news reporters says the government approved name is Y. What the government saying is the fact instead of a viewpoint, and the news reporters are simply wrong.--Visaliaw (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I think Chipmunkdavis meant "we have no secondary sources that ...". — MarkH21talk 05:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
That primary source is literally a single entry in a very simple table. It doesn't say "This government views the official name of this country to be 'The Republic of China (Taiwan)'". It doesn't say "This government changed the official name to be 'The Republic of China (Taiwan)'", or "This government considers '(Taiwan)' to be a full part of the official name", or anything like that. It's just a single table entry, without elaboration or explanation or any context at all. (A table that lists "multiparty democracy" as "government" to boot.) It's weak even for a Primary Source. CMD (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Its official name is just Republic of China, defined in mentioned through out its constitution and abbreviated as R.O.C. The parenthesis phrasing never is official. --Matt Smith (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The constitution is in Chinese. The constitution or law does not specify the English official name or mention any English name.--Visaliaw (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Republic of China "Official" does not mean commonly called, it means in law. Unofficial use does not make something official. TFD (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Laughs in Bunun. We got ourselves into this mess because of the original Republic of China (polity) vs Taiwan (geography/country) merger, and is forced to make a one-liner decision in the first line of the current "Taiwan" article because of that. But as for the proposals as they currently stand, Republic of China (Taiwan) seems appropriate as it is how Taiwanese official communications (notably Tsai Ing-wen's re-election victory statement) handled it. Deryck C. 17:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Republic of China I assume that Ythlev mentioned helpful point, as said: "Websites are not official documents. Passport nationality field reads "Republic of China". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Just something to point outEdit

I'm not trying to change anything, but I just wanted to point out 2 things.

1. I do not understand why Taiwan is listed as a country. The United States does not recognize it, and neither does any especially notable, large, or economically robust country. It is somewhat disputable whether Taiwan's government can call itself a country. There is not much point in having your own country unless many other countries acknowledge your existence.

2. If "Wikipedia is not censored, not giving a straight answer to avoid any complications is the sort of geopolitical bullshit that has no place here," then how come every discussion about Taiwan's status is closed?

I understand there have been lengthy discussions about Taiwan's status, I am just trying to point this out.

NickleSonic (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

For your first point, I would suggest looking at the very long discussion on this if you want clarification on why the community decided Taiwan as a country. The discussion is closed because the community has decided as per the discussion to label Taiwan as a country. Zoozaz1 (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, what does whether the US or any other country recognizes it have to do with anything? Is your country (whatever that might be) only a country because other countries say it is? And who says that THOSE countries are countries? And, if the opinions of other countries matter so much, where did the FIRST country come from?--Khajidha (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
They’re also wrong on the technicality that the US/most of the world does recognize it... Theres more than one type of recognition, the US cut diplomatic ties but never cut (or even agreed to cut) political, economic, cultural, military, and intelligence ties. If they didn’t recognize Taiwan as independent of China they wouldn’t be able to sell them arms, a reminder that for both the Euros and the Americans its illegal to sell arms to the Chinese. Until you see hundreds of US and European companies getting hauled into court for making prohibited deals with a “region of China” this point is moot. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
However, without disagreeing as to any of the underlying facts you cite there, it's still not our place as editors on this project to decide which types of recognition (and in whatever combination from which or what amount of countries) is sufficient to transform the state into a country. That is clearly the exclusive purview of WP:reliable sources under our content policies. I'm fairly certain that this issue must have been debated here countless times, but I am a little concerned by what I am seeing in the latest consensus discussion, which is to say something which seems to be problematically common on this talk page in recent discussions: a whole lot of WP:OR that is well-reasoned and which I might accept in another discursive arena, but which remains quite inappropriate under our NOR/NPOV standards.
Had I been party to that discussion, I think I would have (somewhat reluctantly) had to agree with with MarkH21's assessment and !vote for some variant of 'state' or 'de facto sovereign state', since his is the argument which most predicates itself in the sources and most completely eschews the idiosyncratic arguments based in personal analysis which otherwise dominated that discussion (on both sides of the debate, it must be said). Overwhelmingly the reliable sources seem to use 'state' where they are inclined to describe Taiwain as an independent entity at all--others are much more closely aligned with the PRC view and don't even credit it with so much as a distinction as a legitimate state, but rather designate it by some subordinate distinction or another. But overwhelmingly the sources (both as regards academic and institutional citations as well as journalistic discussion) mostly seem to avoid the extremes of labeling Taiwan either a 'country' or a 'province', and seem to either avoid the issue altogether or land on the somewhat nebulous description of a 'state' (usually with heavy caveats explaining the complex political history, much as this article, quite appropriately, strives to do).
Again, I am more than a little sympathetic to the logic behind some of the arguments advanced which suggest that Taiwan is a different animal from most other disputed states and that the arguments for it being reasonable to call it a proper country are more robust than in many other cases of disputed nationhood: I think those arguments have teeth to them and, bluntly, I just find myself more in accord with them. However, it is manifestly not our role as editors on this project to replace (or even supplement) the perspectives of reliable sources with our own deductions and determinations. And this is the case no matter how well-reasoned they are and no matter how overwhelming we believe the evidence to be: what I would accept as a solid rational or empirical argument for most contexts is a very different question from what I am allowed to accept in terms of an argument advocating for this or that piece of content on this project. My personal read on what constitutes the WP:TRUTH of the situation is just not valid on a Wikipedia talk page--nor are the deductions of any of our editors who may have couched their arguments in anything other than the WP:WEIGHT of the sources. And unfortunately, there is just too much of the former going on in that most recent discussion for me to feel comfortable with the result. (And that would have been the case for me regardless of the outcome, because both sides were using similar original research-oriented arguments based in their reading of facts).
All of that said, I am not by any means advocating for re-opening the issue any time soon: there's a stable, reasonable approach to describing the nation's status in the lead and the issue gets even deeper and more nuanced treatment later in the article; despite my dissent as to the outcome on procedural grounds, my opinion is that it simply would not be a good thing for the article to re-litigate such a basic determination again so soon. I just feel the outcome was problematic from a formalistic perspective and I suspect this will not be the end of the matter and that the consensus (which after-all, can change) will be re-examined at some point down the road. Snow let's rap 22:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)|}
I would point out that we had difficulty finding sources that referred to Taiwan as a state, Country was the one which "predicates itself in the sources” and it wasn’t even close. The only thing that debate proved conclusively is that "Overwhelmingly the reliable sources seem to use 'state' where they are inclined to describe Taiwain” isn't true. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, then the people arguing for "country" did an abysmally poor job of advancing their position, because rather than predicating their argument in the WP:WEIGHT of the sources (which would have been the easiest and most stable way to build support for their approach under our policies, if "country" is in fact the most common terminology of choice in the sources, as you assert) they (yourself included) instead chose to chase the red herring of original research determinations as to what made most sense to them, under their own rational determinations. Of all of the responses in that thread, only Mark did a deep dive into the sources and presented his argument in a fashion in accordance with WEIGHT, NOR, and NPOV broadly. And again, that's true of both sides: both those for 'country' and those for 'state' were overwhelmingly preoccupied with talking about what "made sense" to them--most !votes in that RfC do not mention so much as a single source and only Mark's response attempts to do an aggregate WEIGHT break-down using a sampling of sources from various contexts. So normally at this point I would invite you to make a counter-argument that relies on delving into the sourcing at at least an equal depth. But I meant what I said immediately above: I don't think it's really a good idea to open this can of worms again so soon: even having issues with how that discussion proceeded, I think 'country' is an acceptable term to work with for the present time.
However I also meant what I said when I pointed out that the structural/procedural problems with that discussion have left us with a weak consensus formed on a bad foundation, so I expect the issue will rear its head again over time until a new consensus based on more appropriate process is formed. Even if said consensus ends up arriving at the exact same conclusion as to what the word of choice should be, it will be better if only because it will be more resilient to the types of complaints that are going to keep showing up here (of which this thread is an example). Right now you have a consensus based on original research (at least insofar as the arguments that were advanced in the discussion: you may very well be right that you have sources that support your position, but neither you nor those who argued for the same approach presented those sources in the numbers and manner you should have to have made your WEIGHT argument). The reason you prevailed is that you still had the numbers in terms of editors and the other side was also largely built upon original research and had fewer proponents. But trust me, in order to prevail in the longer-term (and to hopefully bring some stability to the article as regards this question) you'd much rather have consensus based more directly on the weight of the sourcing, against which any other OR argument will be essentially futile. So, if you really do have a means of establishing that yours is the approach attested to most commonly in the sources collectively, I highly advise focusing your arguments in that area when this issue inevitably gets debated again at some future date. Snow let's rap 23:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Check out the Source List which was contributed to by pretty much everyone... It was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt. We have a strong consensus which sits on a strong foundation, you’re out of line. As you said for now the issue has been settled, so we will respect consensus. Also just FYI "Well, if that's the case, then the people arguing for "country" did an abysmally poor job of advancing their position...” and “ Right now you have a consensus based on original research” is probably a WP:NPA violation because you’re misrepresenting their arguments. Don’t insult and disparage your fellow editors, your assertion about OR does just that. Don’t do it again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I advise you to either revert or strike your comment, casting WP:ASPERSIONS is taken very seriously. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Huh I didn’t even realize that the Source List Tag [DD9GA] was a community list; I would’ve added to it because it’s very short and non-representative. All of the sources in the list under my !vote use de facto state or de facto sovereign state, for instance, while the community source list only has one entry for state.
In the future, it may be worth having an RfC for adding de facto since that seems to only have been partially considered in the previous RfC and wasn’t part of the RfC wording. It’s not worth either of your time to debate the past RfC‘s outcome of state vs country. — MarkH21talk 00:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the Source List was edited by at least a half dozen people and probably a few more, I’m sorry that wasn’t more clear and if I had realized at the time you didnt know that I would have been sure to point it out to you. BTW I picked two articles off your list list and while one uses de-facto in their voice neither use state, BBC says "the two countries” in their own voice (they do use state once but its not an endorsement of the term or really in their own voice "is treated by some governments as though it's a de-facto state.") [115] and France 24 says "de facto sovereign nation” [116]. One issue we’re going to run into with the whole de-facto/de-jure thing is that while by definition only one thing can be de-facto true at a time there can be literally infinite de-jure truths which are all true at the same time, most people seem to treat it as a binary (thats especially apparent from the now closed conversation). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I linked the BBC article because it says Taiwan has its own army and currency and is treated by some governments as though it's a de-facto state. although it is attributing the de-facto state to the treatment from governments, but not calling it one outright. About the France24 article, you’re right it says nation instead of state. I wasn’t careful enough with my labeling and was more focused on the de facto than the state part.
If a large proportion of RSes call it is a de facto state/country/nation/etc, then that I imagine that should be sufficient for most editors. — MarkH21talk 07:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Given that many of the votes cast mentioned de-facto or otherwise in their preferred name I think its safe to say it was included in the RfC. I also think you will want to re-examine that list... I went through the rest of the mass media sources on it, the only two good ones are the NPR piece and the CBC piece (the FT was paywalled so I was unable to evaluate it.). The Diplomat, Taipei Times, Foreign Policy, and Japan Times articles are all opinion pieces. The The Wire piece is an interesting question, its commentary but the author is a subject matter expert so in context I would say this is good but for the expert’s opinion not for The Wire’s opinion. The nice part about the unified list is that it was checked in its entirety by a number of editors and errors such as this were caught. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Rather than adding the adjective de facto, which by itself doesn't say very much, it would be better to move the sentence about the PRC claim from the fourth paragraph to the first. This is much more helpful to readers than a generic latin term, and is commonly mentioned by sources. User:Kanguole made a similar suggestion above in #Restructuring of the lead, although I think it's better to stick to the basic fact of claims rather than try and meld population and the United Nations together. CMD (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Given that the RfC was worded only between country and state, in addition to most of the !votes not mentioning nor alluding to consideration of de facto, one could say that the RfC didn’t fully cover the separate de facto aspect and does not preclude a future RfC on that aspect (I’m not saying that we should do this now). I agree that a unified list is a good thing. I just think that that particular one was quite short. — MarkH21talk 08:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Functionally I think we’re in agreement, I don’t see anything in the RfC that would preclude more specific RfCs in the future and I agree that there isn't anything to be gained from wading immediately back into the swamp. We’l have to be better organized next time (although if the perfect RfC exists I’ve yet to see it), there were a lot of experienced editors not exactly sure what the RfC was about and the sheer variety of arguments made I think reflects that point. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I assure you I will not be doing that. And you really need to refamiliarize yourself with what passes for a WP:Personal attack on this project if you think anything I said above even begins to vaguely cross into that territory: I didn't denigrate you, nor any other editor, their abilities, or their motives. I simply assessed that one argument was better predicated in sources and in policy than the other was--and I did so in scrupulously civil tone. For that matter, I painted both sides with the same brush when it comes to the major policy issue of that discussion. It is not an "aspersion" to have a different read from you on the strength of your own argument--and it doesn't particularly speak well for the strength of that argument that your response is not to defend it under content policy terms but rather to try to intimidate a fellow editor into removing a contrary opinion. If you're that incensed by how I described the argument you align with, you can always pursue process, but I feel I can tell you with some certainty you will not get the result you are seeking if you expect the community to validate your position that I have attacked you on a personal level merely by disagreeing with your reading of policy an the sources. This manner of "You said I was really, really wrong and that's just the same thing as attacking me!" argument does occasionally get advanced by relatively inexperienced editors, but you will find there is very little support for that position (which would be completely unworkable in the context of this project) in the wording of the relevant policies themselves or the community at large. Regardless I find there was nothing offensive or indeed incorrect in how I framed my previous comments, so I will not be retracting my observations as to the content issue. Snow let's rap 00:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
An experienced editor would know what OR is... Have a wonderful night, I’m glad you did not intend to be offensive or mock the consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
An experienced editor would know what OR is...
Indeed, so as an experienced editor, I will take another crack at explaining why exactly I have concerns after reviewing the recent discussions on this talk page regarding this particular matter: When an editor formulates their position about a content determination by employing an argument along the lines of "Well, I observe that X and Y are indisputable facts, and therefore I conclude that Z is clearly the Truth that we ought to be representing in this article, because Z clearly follows from X and Y, and clearly we want to be accurate." ...that is manifestly textbook WP:Original research. Or more precisely, it is WP:SYNTHESIS. An appropriate NPOV content argument on this project looks more like this: "A large number of reliable sources have concluded that A is the most accurate way to describe this, while a smaller but still statistically significant number of sources say that B is more accurate: therefore we should present A as the majority view, but discuss the existence of B, because clearly we want to represent the sources accurately." Now, a review of the last RfC on this subject reveals that there was a marked tendency towards the former kind of argument and sparingly little of the latter. Which is indeed a real problem, as it gives the impression that far too many editors were !voting their own opinions on this controversial topic rather than weighing the perspectives as represented in the sources. (And again, let me be clear, this was happening on both "sides" of the argument).
Now, as I would hope my comments above also make clear, I am not saying this is good reason to re-examine the issue now--I do not believe re-opening the discussion at this juncture would be productive, and I support just going with the current consensus as described in the close. My point was/is only that such a consensus is more vulnerable to continued objections than it would have been, had it been more firmly rooted in the sources, rather than in the idiosyncratic views of our own editors. Had the opposite approach been taken, one could dismiss further complaints as "opinion vs. the sources". But now the situation is much closer to "opinion vs. opinion", which I can tell you, from experience, leads to endless argumentation, in the context of this project. Indeed, that's the primary reason why we have an RS/NPOV/NOR approach here, as a opposed to a "truth-based" approach that leads to endless arguments about whose Truth is the "real" Truth.
I’m glad you did not intend to be offensive
On this site, never. I'll be honest, I've been known to be a little glib in some other areas of my life, but here on this project I have a pretty heavy inclination to straight-forward, unsarcastic dialogue. So if it ever seems like I am mocking you, I would request that you re-read my comments again and consider if they can be taken in a different light, because am dubious about any use of humour here and absolutely opposed to derision or ridicule of any sort. This is a special place with a special purpose and a special process, and so I approach it with special rules. I'm quite certain it makes me seem like a joyless machine to some people here at times, but that's not true: I like my co-volunteers here by and large and take real pleasure from what we build together. I just feel that this work should inspire us to embrace as sedate, unflappable, and objective a mindset as we can manage.
or mock the consensus
No, I would not say my purpose was to mock the consensus but rather to point out where I thought the discussion was problematic and why I think it is unlikely to stop people from raising objections, in the longterm (as per my comments at the beginning of this post). However, even had I been savaging the consensus in much more strident terms, that would not have been against policy. Not only are editors allowed to point out when they think a previous consensus was in error (or that it arrived at the right conclusion through the wrong argument), the project depends on them doing so: consensus can and does change and no article is ever perfect--everything is open to review. But again, I actually support sticking with the recent consensus for now, as the best path forward. I was simply trying to explain why I think you are still seeing objections to it, and why that situation may be likely to persist unless the arguments start to change a little.
Have a wonderful night
Thank you--likewise. Best wishes. Snow let's rap 01:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Khajidha, you said that "Is your country ... only a country because other countries say it is?", and to that, I answer yes. When later in your argument, you stated that how was the FIRST country made? And I would say, the world didn't start out with international regulations or the united nations. The first countries were made just by declaring themselves. However, time has passed, and things have changed. And Taiwan is not recognized by many, say, important countries, (Sorry if you are from any of them). Which brings me to my next point, mentioned by Horse Eye Jack. He says that there are many types of recognition. And when you brought up selling military equipment to Taiwan, I would also like to point out that the US wants Taiwan to be a country, but does not recognize it. The US is desperately attempting to strengthen Taiwan and try to use it as a tool to try to defeat China. And mind I add, Taiwan claims all of Mainland China as its territory, too. But we don't see all of mainland China in light green on the global at the top of the Taiwan page. NickleSonic (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"The US is desperately attempting to strengthen Taiwan and try to use it as a tool to try to defeat China.” if thats what the US is trying to do they’re doing an epically bad job at it... You should drop the hyperbole, people aren’t going to take you seriously when you say ridiculous things. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
That was intended for someone on Discord, I got what I was copy/pasting mixed up, sorry. NickleSonic (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability in current and future defensive efforts. The recipient will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen homeland defense," is what one of the sales for military equipment to Taiwan says. Taiwan buys some of the most military equipment from the US. And China is not actively at war with Taiwan. So is all of this military equipment really all for "defense"? and the "deterrent to region threats" literally just means "So China cannot reclaim Taiwan". NickleSonic (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
NickleSonic, I'm not going to call those factors irrelevant exactly, but neither is their veracity a particularly on-point subject matter here. There are a thousand different methodologies/combinations of factors which a reasonable person might use, for their own idiosyncratic purposes (or as a primary researcher or author), to determine whether or not Taiwan qualifies as a "true" nation. And for each of those standards, a thousand different opinions as to what extent those elements have been met. But that's not what we are meant to be doing here as editors on this project: it doesn't matter how well considered your argument is for using your particular combination of weighted consideration--nor is how much background your test is based in, how expansively it captures the total field of factors at play, or how many people you can get to sign on to the notion that you nailed the analysis. You could be the world's leading figure on the topic and could provide us with a hundred pages worth of the most nuanced breakdown of statehood, according to various treatments under international law and geopolitical realities, backed up by masses of intricately detailed research, troves of data, and support from both other major researchers and primary parties who help shape the fortunes of Taiwan. You could have those skills, that knowledge, an that perspective and present an unparalleled argument before us, and it would still not be appropriate for us to base our content upon it, even if we knew your stellar credentials and were all 100% sold on your logic and methodology. Because Wikipedia content is based on what reliable, published sources state, not the firsthand WP:Original research of our editors. So no matter how certain we are that we can reach to the truth through the use of our own deductive powers, and no matter how incontrovertible we think the underlying facts are, we still need to predicate our content arguments solely in what the sources have to say on the matter.
This is all very important in the present circumstance in particular because there is currently a standing consensus on this matter which was just recently settled upon and while this does not 100% bar continued discussion of the matter, it is considered to be potentially problematic (or even WP:disruptive) to keep re-raising the issue in repeated subsequent threads unless you have a good argument to make under our policies for why the consensus is wrong (even then, most editors will give the matter some time). The argument you are advancing (your own hot take, without reference to a single source) is not a good argument in those terms. Although I am opposed to re-opening this can of worms at present, I can theoretically think of good arguments for why someone might want to. But yours isn't one of those good arguments (in terms of our policies), so unless you are going to begin to root your argument more in the sources and the relevant content guidelines, I'd urge you to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this and let the matter go for now. I do personally think that in time the consensus here will probably be re-established around the standard of calling Taiwan a 'state' rather than a 'country', but it's not going to happen by virtue of the arguments you have advanced and the timing you have chosen makes it especially problematic. So let's just let the matter lay for now, improve other areas of the article and (perhaps) come back around to the 'country' issue in due time: with a little luck, both sides will be a little less dogmatic at that point and we may be able to strike on balance that most editors can accept. Snow let's rap 00:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020Edit

Please change "with salaries far beneath than their expectations" to "with salaries far beneath their expectations" because of a grammatical error. Davhef (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  Done Thank you for pointing this out! aboideausapere aude 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Taiwan" page.