Talk:Taiwan/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Taiwan is not "sovereign state"

Taiwan will be sovereign when there is Taiwanese independence and most countries in the world acknowledge independent Taiwan. Most countries don't acknowledge Taiwan as an independent nation including the United States, Japan and vast majority of European countries. Taiwan legally is not sovereign. Including "Taiwan is a sovereign state" is factually incorrect and POV. 174.51.176.22 (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan meets the definition of a de facto sovereign state. Recognition is not a requirement of sovereignty under the Montevideo Convention, alongside the European Union's Badinter Committee. The declarative definition of a sovereign state is accepted as international law. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No it is not. you used the word "de facto." So in other words in truth it is not sovereign. Republic of china didn't declare independence. Sovereign technically means independent. ROC is not independent. They themselves didn't officially declare their independence and other countries didn't acknowledge anything. Country is independent or not. if they are not independent they are not "sovereign." I understand your Taiwanese nationalism, but in common sense around the world Taiwan is not really a sovereign country. 174.51.176.22 (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How is Taiwan not independent? They were never under another power that they had to declare independence from. CMD (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

174.51.176.22, I don't know where you learned your history, but you're wrong. The ROC did declare independence. The ROC declared independence from the Manchu Qing Dynasty and has been a sovereign state ever since.

Ok here is the issue. ROC existed after the Qing dynasty, but they lost the civil war to people's republic of china and the moved to Taiwan. PRC is much more acknowledged by the world as being an independent sovereign state. ROC lost their position in the UN Security Council to PRC, another sign that ROC is not legitimate country. Read the Taiwan independence article. It states that Taiwan didn't officially declare their independence from PRC. PRC claims ROC is not legitimate country and will militarily attack ROC if there is "official" written declaration of independence. Taiwan claims it has defacto independence, but it is not official. It is not written. Taiwan lost their legitimacy around the world after the Chinese Civil War. Taiwan got lucky because US and other western nations vowed to defend Taiwan if PRC attacked them on the island. The west saved Taiwan otherwise the PRC would've finished Taiwan off after World War 2.

I can understand that Taiwanese can say they are independent country in Taiwan, which is fine, but around the world Taiwan is not considered independent country acknowledged by the powerful countries. There is certain level of independence like elections, laws and military, but there is huge dispute happening about whether taiwan is totally "independent" country like, Iraq, India, Vietnam, US, Canada. Mentally it is ok to claim that Taiwan is independent, but officially/technically it is hard to say it is a sovereign state. Taiwan can be a "country" but not necessarily a "sovereign state" right now. It is psychological vs. reality. Taiwan psychologically claims that PRC is a "free area" of the ROC, but that will never be reality. Reality is ROC will never invade PRC and the communist party. It is a little bit of dream and reality contradiction. For Taiwanese living in Taiwan, Taiwan seems independent, but looking at closely and from the outside (non-Taiwanese) perspective, it is an island that has dispute with its huge neighbor and can't 100% control its destiny right now. 174.51.176.22 (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The PRC has never controlled Taiwan or the other areas currently administered by the Republic of China. What about the countries which do recognise the ROC? Note also, that the ROC did not lose UN membership seat until 1971, 22 years after the founding of the PRC, with some countries, including the United States, continuing to recognise the ROC up until the end of that decade, and some beyond that even, i.e. South Africa. As explained, the ROC is a de facto (and de jure to the states which still recognise the ROC) sovereign state. It seems more of a personal analysis of the situation, which in fairness, does have some factually accurate information, however, the reality is that both the PRC and ROC exist, and they don't control each other's territories. If the ROC is only recognised by a minority of states, then equally the PRC is partially or wholly unrecognised by that same minority.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

PRC never controlled Taiwan, but Taiwan is not 100% recognized by any members of the UN Security Council and the powerful countries officially. Couple of small and poor nations recognize it in Oceania and Africa. 12.190.142.192 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

State (polity) is an alternative which indisputably applies to the ROC, though I express no opinion as to whether this substitution ought to be made. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan is independent to a certain degree. It has limits to its independence and they know it. It is hard for Taiwan to say that. 12.190.142.192 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I came here was after a headline in a major newspaper clearly recognising the results of what it described as the national elections, and describing the whole country as Taiwan. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If we change this article to "Taiwan" and remove all references to the fact that the ROC (Taiwan) is a (de facto) sovereign state, most people unfamiliar with the situation will then assume or believe that it is not and that it is a part of the People's Republic of China. The wheels of changing, diminishing and erasing (in literature if not in fact) the ROC's status as a sovereign state on Wikipedia has already begun to spin. Next, the Pro-PRC crowd will start insisting that "Taiwan" be labeled as a de facto Special Administrative Region. By propogating inaccurate information and thereby changing perception, the ROC will one day be forced to capitulate to the PRC as a SAR (or worse, just another rovince) without the PRC ever firing a shot. We need to be accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2012

This is literally the worst reason so far that somebody has offered in favor of moving the article one way or the other. But you do bring up a good point: it's not a good idea to describe Taiwan as a "de facto" this or that, whether a sovereign state or something else. We should make plain and immediate the fact that the overwhelming majority of states don't consider Taiwan/ROC to be a sovereign state. Using Wikipedia as an activist platform to deny this reality (even for a good cause for which most of us would agree; that is, undermining those evil Chinese Communists) is still activism. Shrigley (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

159.53.78.140, you're clearly declaring that your intentions here are political. Wikipedia should not make decisions on such grounds. We need to be neutral and make decisions on the basis of providing encyclopaedic content in the best way possible. We must consider this debate as one between Wikipedia's desire to have names which are common and the competing desire to be accurate. We should not be having a political discussion. LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my reply near the beginning of this thread, Taiwan is already by definition a sovereign state. De facto is just a descriptor, it helps clarify but it's not essential. International law holds that recognition is not necessary for a state to be considered sovereign. Certainly we'd say that Taiwan has very little international recognition as a legitimate state, but we wouldn't say that this strips them of their sovereignty because that's not the case, by definition. Politics, which sadly have been involved in this discussion for the entire time, have no power to influence the decisions that we will make based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I will point out again, for the benefit of some of the latecomers, that the ROC Government Information Office (GIO) uses the term Taiwan in reference to the country in many of its own official press releases. It's plainly not a case of the name Taiwan being inaccurate if the government itself has no problem making use of it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The precise status/description of Taiwan - unlike the name itself, despite the wrangling over that - is obviously quite tricky to define/agree and is something that will need to be agreed on in article text. Personally, I think an explicit description, unqualified, as a "sovereign state" lacks precision and accuracy. N-HH talk/edits 09:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Did they mention that it's an election for the 13th term of the presidency, since the adoption of the present constitution? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's two questions, namely: (1) Is the ROC a sovereign state, and (2) Is this sovereign state a Taiwan state. From the international law point of view the ROC is certainly independent and sovereign, as TechnoSymbiosis has rightly pointed out. But it isn't yet independent and sovereign as Taiwan. It is still a rump state. It's carrying on the ROC within a much smaller territorial extent. The DPP administration under president Chen took the first steps to transform it into a Taiwan state. But those were very preliminary steps and some had already been undone by the following KMT administration under Ma. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what this contribution refers to, or what relevance it has to anything. N-HH talk/edits 22:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you knew the issue, then you would understand what the IP is trying to state but I guess there is no point in arguing against people who have not read the articles or don't understand the complexity of the issue or care about it or outrightly ignore it.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what they are trying to get at, but it is appallingly written and the points being made, to the extent that they are serious points at all, are irrelevant, eg "it isn't yet independent and sovereign as Taiwan". What does that mean? What does it have to do with anything? The politics of individual Taiwanese parties are equally irrelevant to the point in question. I am well aware of the complexities of Taiwan-China issues, thank you, which are and should be covered in article text (as I and everyone else have always said). I am also, however, aware of the rather uncomplicated nature of the issue we have been bogged down in here - which relates simply and solely to the article name. Anyway, it would seem the discussion has moved on, so, whatever. N-HH talk/edits 11:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-name, again

Having read ( and slightly contributed to) the previous renaming discussions, I am making another proposal. As a compromise solution, I expect it will satisfy no-one, but on the other hand as I think something needs to be done, I’m hoping there’s just enough for everyone to make it acceptable.
Therefore I propose this page be moved to “Republic of China (Taiwan)”, because a) it can’t stay where it is; ROC is not the common name for this country in most of the world outside Taiwan , but b) as it’s the official name for the country it should be acceptable to those who are unhappy with simply using Taiwan as the article name.
I propose to put this in as a request move, unless everybody dislikes it. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Inb4 Fujian, Quemoy, Matsu, etc. Shrigley (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're jumping the gun. There is already a move request in the works to move the article fully to Taiwan. I suggest you wait until that proposal has been lodged, discussed and then a decision taken over it. John Smith's (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no merit in this proposal at all. The state's name is the "Republic of China". That of itself is not exactly short. Adding 'Open Brackets Taiwan Close Brackets' to it is unnecessary and of no benefit. I also disagree with it because the Republic of China is far more than Taiwan Province....but if I get into the various reasons (see my postings above), I will be accused of repetition (rightly!). There is no consensus for any change either! 86.46.26.227 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The common name of the country is Taiwan. Just as with the United States, that should be the name of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Taiwan. Absolutely.

I have been to "China" twice. I got nowhere near Taiwan.

No one flies to "China" and arrives in Taipei.

When Chinese Canadians talk about what packaged food is safe to eat, they say food from China is dangerous, but food from Taiwan is ok.

The Kuomintang lost the war in the 1940s. Why are we clinging desperately to this fiction that they won?

Those of us who lived through the Cold War stopped saying "Red China" (bad) vs. "Nationalist China" (good) some time in the 1970s.

Varlaam (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Kuomintang lost the war in the 1940s. Why are we clinging desperately to this fiction that they won?" - Because they didn't lose. The island, that is (Verb, example 2), not the war (Verb, example 3). "When Chinese Canadians talk about what packaged food is safe to eat, they say food from China is dangerous, but food from Taiwan is ok." - anecdotal accounts don't prove anything; some people say that the Soviets liberated them from the Nazis, and welcomed them heartily, whilst others say that the Soviets gang-raped their wives and daughters. Individual sampling is not representative of an entire population; part of my university course (Physiotherapy) deals with statistics and quantitative research. In fact, instead of being on Wikipedia, I'm supposed to be finishing my essay on qualitative and quantitative research right now, whoops. "I have been to "China" twice. I got nowhere near Taiwan. No one flies to "China" and arrives in Taipei." - If you fly to Kinmen, you get nowhere near Taiwan. No one flies to Matsu and arrives on Taiwan. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many Taiwanese people in Chinatowns all around Canada (and the United States). And one may fly to Taipei or Kaohsiung with China Airlines. There they may watch the programmes of China Television, get a tank of petroleum from Chinese Petro, get a pre-paid telephone plan with Chunghwa Telecom, and send a postcard with a stamp from Chunghwa Post. Further, the full name of KMT remains Chung-kuo Kuo-ming-tang. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, benlisquare, but people alighting in Kinmen do arrive in Taiwan by common terminology, as do people travelling to Taipei. And neither of those, very definitely, arrive "in China" as commonly understood. As to Mr IP, I am very happy for all the people you describe. However, what other things might be called has nothing to do with anything in relation to this article. N-HH talk/edits 22:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm fine with "Republic of China (Taiwan)", as long as there is a relevant article dealing with the Beiyang and KMT on mainland governments. I can't be bothered with this anymore. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It's certainly wearying, isn't it. Do stay around if possible, it's nice to have rational input (not to mention a name instead of a number) from the opposing side. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Having the article name "Taiwan" is the most logical move there is after the move of PRC -> China. It so happens this fits what the people who ride the WP:commonname argument want. But if you are serious about "Republic of China (Taiwan)", you better be ready for "Republic of China (mainland 1912-1949)", something along that line. Benjwong (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking into account of the current talk at Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949)#Proposed solution; split, it seems that making these moves

• Beiyang Government --> Republic of China (1912-1927)
• Nationalist Government --> Republic of China (1927-1949)

and the creation of Communist-controlled China (1927–1949) makes a page such as Republic of China (Taiwan) fit in more snugly, ignoring the fact that the China article also exists. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate the intention, this seems like one of those odd, bespoke WP compromises that go too far in accomodating an obscurity. The common name of this entity, as argued and evidenced ad nauseam above, is indisputably Taiwan. Nobody uses ROC any more, even the Taiwanese government half the time. Not only is this mix and match suggestion giving undue weight to that alternative, it also relies on us using the equally rarely used "Republic of China (Taiwan)" formulation. N-HH talk/edits 10:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. ROC government publications in the English language use the ROC(T) form, and avoid using "Taiwan" directly on its own, unless referring to the geographical Taiwan. It's not a rarely used term as you might think it to be. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It may not be absolutely rare, in that it is never seen, but it is definitely rare in relative terms. I agree with N-HH, the formulation doesn't fix anything. Disambiguation is for when there is a clash of two identical common names with no primary topic. Not the case here. CMD (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I agree the government sometimes use the ROC(T) form, as they do the straight ROC form (I said use was rare in both cases, not non-existent). They also use Taiwan on its own, and often fairly clearly about the state as a whole, not just the mainland. But virtually no one else uses the first two options - all serious global reference sources and world media use simply "Taiwan", as do most media in Taiwan as far as I can tell. An opening sentence that says "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China", to me seems to offer more than enough clarity, as well as due weight to the alternative. N-HH talk/edits 10:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's obscure to you because you don't care about the detail apart from the title and the scope of this article. You resist to get into those details. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The move from PRC to China should be undone. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That likely is not going to happen. There are many supporters that PRC = China, the strongest supporter being the UN. Also I don't know who started the trend that government pages = country pages. They are two different things. Benjwong (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Efforts should be spent to restore that article. We should not instead spread the problem to other articles. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The arguments are well known....Why go around in circles. There is no consensus for any change. The article has been stable at "Republic of China" for years and should stay there. 86.46.26.227 (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That move discussion was a legitimate one. Like or dislike the result, that move lasted 3 years, and it was not rushed. The ROC article is anything but stable. It has been accused of not syncing with the times. Even ROC citizens call themselves Taiwanese, do you need any more evidence. Benjwong (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It has long been the usual practice for country articles to cover all aspects of a country, from government to geography, both on WP and in paper encyclopedias. It is WP's ROC/Taiwan split that is strange. Kanguole 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's such insistence on accuracy and neutrality that makes Wikipedia the most successful encyclopedia project ever. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's wikipedia's crowd sourcing that makes it successful. All decent encyclopaedias strive for accuracy and neutrality. CMD (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Let's look at how Encyclopaedia Britannica names the entries for the Republic of Ireland,[1] the Republic of Macedonia,[2] and the Federated States of Micronesia.[3] 218.250.159.25 (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes? CMD (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Just another deliberately sneaky distraction from and avoidance of the real issue here. The common name of the country is Taiwan. Anything else is local politics and not wanted here. HiLo48 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't only about local politics, but international relations and politics too. And no, common name isn't the sole principle or pillar of Wikipedia. There are other more important values. You don't belong to Wikipedia more so than I do just because you got a registered account. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

True, but for some incomprehensible reason you've chosen to make it appear that way. No matter how much you protest that it shouldn't, it does. And let's be sensible here. The name of the country isn't what makes the international relations work or not work. Grasping onto the China part of the name is just a desperate but ultimately futile distortion of reality by people still fighting a long lost 60 year old war. Calling your beloved country Taiwan would make no difference whatsoever to international relations. I do acknowledge that it may hurt some egos, but surely it's time to bite the bullet and move forward, rather than forever hoping to move backwards, and trying to use Wikipedia as a tool for achieving that unachievable goal. It's sad that the same people who cannot face reality over the name of the country cannot face reality over registering here. I do remember names, and the kinds of things different named editors post. I cannot remember 12 digit numbers, so I have no idea what you have said here in the past. There is no continuity to your persona and your arguments. If you did register, you would make conversation so much easier for us all, and be able to present your position so much more solidly and cogently. HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@IP, as neither HiLo48 or I even mentioned IP vs named users in the posts you were replying to, I have no idea why you brought that up. CMD (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There are so many reasons why the ROC name for the article is appropriate. Some one pointed out that the common name is not by any means the sole criterion. The same person noted the importance of the "Republic of China" name in terms of international relations. Another person has stressed its importance in terms of understanding that the state referred to has a history that goes well beyond Taiwan Province. I have pointed out other reasons and that there is no consensus for any change. Clearly no change commands any consensus support. The article name should remain unchanged. 86.46.26.227 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Immediately after the claim of the importance of the ROC name in international relations to which you've just referred, I refuted it, with reasons, yet you just keep repeating dogma. That shows both very poor faith (ignoring my post) and a foolish approach to discussion here. When this goes to a properly framed RfC, and quality of argument is assessed, you will get nowhere. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@IP also. I don't wish to be rude, but on what basis should the rest of us trust your forcefully put opinion when it comes to naming issues, and theoretical and practical points related to the English language, when you write things like "Efforts should be spent to restore that article" ... "You don't belong to Wikipedia more so than I do just because you got a registered account"? N-HH talk/edits 22:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan could be added to the title of this article but I would be opposed to removing "Republic of China" from the title. Doing so would create several potential headaches that I don't think those who bang on the WP:COMMONNAME drum fully appreciate when they dismiss the thorny problems as "local politics." I'm opposed to this going to RfC simply because I don't think the complexities of this issue will be adequately analyzed when any editor can just drive by and cast a vote. The appeal to common knowledge should be considered in the context of an encyclopedia whose job it is is to educate.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There should be no problem. We can educate as much as we want. The article can (already does) include heaps about the history. How the name has evolved over time is also important and should be included. But resisting modern reality is just foolish, as would be using a name that is not the current effective name of the country. That would not be educational, apart from showing the world the intransigence of some fighters of a long ago lost war. HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I keep reading references to a "long lost war". The Chinese Civil War being lost doesn't mean that the Republic of China is lost; the only two scenarios where that is possible is if a) the PLA crosses the Taiwan Strait, or b) the Taiwanese people rectify their country's name via a referendum or violent coup. Equating the loss of a war with the loss of a country is like saying that de Gaulle's France was "lost", forever, during 1940. Sure, I don't expect the National Revolutionary Army of the Republic of China to be marching into Beijing next Wednesday, but that does not mean that the ROC is no more. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, but it's name is now effectively Taiwan. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Though the ROC lost the mainland, Taiwan was never "liberated" by Mao's army (nomenclature and euphemism of PRC historiography used), and global recognition of Taiwan as a province of either the PRC, or as "China", is rectified de jure by name and rhetoric only. Until the People's Liberation Army "liberates" the hell of of Taiwan (like how the United States "freed" the shit out of Iraq), there still exists a polity named the ROC. This might happen at any time (after all, Zhejiang was not fully "liberated" until 10 years after most of the mainland was "liberated"), or never at all, and until then, the ROC is not de facto dead. Similarly, until "national rectification" (rhetoric of the Democratic Progressive Party used) occurs by popular vote, the ROC still exists. Until then, use of "Taiwan" can only be colloquial and informal, regardless of how commonly used, which is why "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is a feasible article title, but "Taiwan" is not (for the country article). ROC(T) clarifies the situation for those who are not familiar with the situation (the "(Taiwan)" makes it clear enough to even the dumbest of readers that it isn't the "other China"), whilst "Taiwan" takes one side that is not reflective of reality. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for god's sake, you really are still fighting that war, aren't you? Can't you see that the rest of the world doesn't care? There's a country there off the east coast of China. It's not called China. It's called Taiwan. Not your perspective? Tough. It's how the rest of the world sees it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the rest of the world is wrong of course. Britannica? Edited by morons. US State Dept, UK FCO and BBC country profiles? Slavishly following the dictates of their biased governments (unlike the Taiwanese government, whose occasional use of ROC or ROC (Taiwan) is decidedly neutral, naturally). Whitaker's Almanack? A fly-by-night publication with no authority whatsoever. The New York Times? Amateur tabloid whose writers are ignorant of world affairs. Taiwan's own media? Just confused probably. By contrast, a couple of Wikipedia editors know the wp:truth and can explain it to the rest of us at tedious length using their own original research, their powers of logical analysis, and their dedication to educating readers and purported neutrality (aka "the world as I see it"). Fortunately, they will save the rest of us from making fools of ourselves here by taking the easy option and doing what everyone else in the world does when it comes to the simple question of naming this thing. N-HH talk/edits 11:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the Wikipedia sites for the "rest of the world", you'll see that having PRC=China and ROC=Taiwan is in the minority. Many use the full name of "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.144 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, lucky for us wikipedia is a reliable source we must follow. But on topic, other languages=other terminology=irrelevant. CMD (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What a strange thing for a Wikipedia editor, banging on the drums of WP:COMMONNAME neutrality to type; the whole idea behind using "PRC" and "ROC" instead of "China" and "Taiwan" is for the purpose of reliability and accuracy; why is that so difficult to graps? But, to your point: Do other countries have other terminologies for "People's", "Republic" and "China"? Is "Taiwan" somehow terminologically different in the parts of the world that do not speak English? How are they different? I don't see any differences (I don't think the Portuguese even still call the island of Taiwan "Formosa"). I don't know how many languages you speak, but there can be no fundamental differences for "People's Republic of China", "Republic of China", "China" and "Taiwan". "PRC", "ROC", "China" and "Taiwan" are proper nouns, there are very little differences in terminology for these places.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.144 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

^Irrelevant, obfuscating post, again.^

(Well, I think it's "again", Being from an IP address rather than a helpfully responsible editor, I have no idea if that person has posted before. I'm certainly not going to go back and compare 12 digit numbers, and even if the same, that would still be no guarantee it was the same person.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm answering CMD's "on topic" response to "other languages=other terminology=irrelevant", so I do not know why you're pointing a me instead of him/her in regards to relevancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your post immediately followed mine and contained no indication that you were responding to anyone but me. What drugs are you on? (I am getting really sick of ongoing implications that there is something wrong with my editing style here while the rampaging hordes of secretive and anonymous, confusing IP editors are just perfect in all regards. There was no apology. No suggestion that they could have done better. Pure arrogance and absolute load of crap.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting. In other words, it's still shitposting, even if you are genuinely trying to be ironic. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Does the character "China" in the context of "Republic of China" mean nothing to people ? "China" does not equal to "Taiwan",so I do not agree "the re-name" thing in any way and I think the main reason that people here have this sort of discussion is because some Taiwanese separatists really eager to use Wikipedia to achieve their political goals,pathetic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.211.202 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very poorly written post, perhaps from someone whose first language is not English, in which case I would suggest working on another language version of Wikipedia. What I do think I can discern is that I am being accused of being, or being led astray by Taiwanese separatists. WTF? It's laughable, pathetic, incompetent, and/or very bad faith. (English?) Wikipedia is not the place for you. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think both parties on the opposing sides need to assume good faith. For what it's worth, I don't think calling the IP's views pathetic and incompetent is the best way to word your opinion. Equally, the IPs need to need to respect the views of other users. Both may have valid points, and attacking each other is going to get nowhere. It seems to show a lack of respect on the part of both sides. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot assume good faith unless I also assume stupidity. How can I respect the position of someone who accuses me of being part of, or being led astray by Taiwanese separatists. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you need not resort to retaliation. It seems to me that this whole issue has caused quite a lot of hostility and resentment around here.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. This "has caused quite a lot of hostility and resentment around here". No resentment on my part, but occasional mild hostility when I see really dumb comments posted here in alleged good faith. But you mistake my intent. It's not retaliation. It's an attempt to get very misled and mistaken (or stupid?) editors to see reality. I won't stop calling the nonsense when I see it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, there's a difference between (1) pointing out others' mistakes and (2) calling them stupid. One is encouraged at Wikipedia, and the other get's people blocked. Mlm42 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I try to choose my words carefully. I truly believe that a comment accusing other editors of being or being led astray by Taiwanese separatists IS stupid. That does not mean I think the poster is stupid, although one inevitably thinks about why someone would post such rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I try to choose my words carefully. Please try harder. In my opinion, your comments on this talk page have reached an unacceptable level of incivility, which is counter-productive. Mlm42 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a number of IP editors here for whom niceness in others' posts made no difference. What's the point of continuing in the same vein? I firmly believe that with people who don't see my point when I'm nice to them, a more dramatic approach can be very useful. Again, I wasn't the editor who accused other editors of being or being led astray by Taiwanese separatists. THAT'S the real issue here, yet you're attacking my reponse. Have a think about the impact of your response here. You're effectively saying to the misled(?) editor who posted that garbage "Oh, that's OK, we understand, but that evil HiLo, he's the real problem here." You are endorsing the posting of stupid comments. Attack the real problem. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You may think that "a more dramatic approach" is useful, but I assure you that it is not. It may let you vent some anger, but it does nothing to change the behaviour of other editors, and in fact harms your case since it makes you look unreasonable. I have accepted the fact there are going to be some emotional and deeply misinformed posts on this talk page (as have most editors here); creating an angry dialog only makes things worse. That's why Wikipedia has a civility policy, which I strongly suggest all editors follow. Mlm42 (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I still think calling stupid posts for what they are is appropriate, otherwise they stand without criticism and condemnation, and that definitely doesn't help Wikipedia become a better encyclopaedia. We clearly come from different cultures, with different standards of what is "civil", and you cannot see my point. I've made my point now for others to see. I'll stop now, but I do wish someone else would say at least something negative about that accusation from the IP editor that we are all dupes of Taiwanese seperatists. Otherwise, it appears that you agree. The IP editor will certainly be feeling comfortable with his allegation. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)