Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Misplaced Pages by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Taiwan was copied or moved into Sports in Taiwan with this edit on 22 October 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Please do not add Simplified characters and tongyong pinyin to the country infobox.
The topic of this article is the Republic of China although its title has been moved to Taiwan.
Please refrain from adding "(Taiwan)" indiscriminately because this article includes historical information about the Republic of China as well as Taiwan.
Determine whether Taiwan should be called a 'country' or 'state'
Complete: Consensus has been reached for Taiwan to be called a 'country'. The consensus was 33 for country, 10 for state, and 5 for some variation of state. Here is the page on which consensus was reached
Keoni Everington (2020-06-15). "Misplaced Pages finally designates Taiwan as 'country'". Taiwan News. Retrieved 2020-06-16. In a request for comments (RFC) page created to debate the proper status of Taiwan in its Misplaced Pages entry, editors in May fiercely debated the merits of referring to Taiwan as a "state" or a "country."
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taiwan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
"Closure was requested at WP:ANRFC, and the discussion is stale. Reading through it, I adopt the "Closing statement (WIP)" that was written by SzqecsThere 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."
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?
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:
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.
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)
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 Misplaced Pages'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:
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)
Do you think this article should have a "mish-mash" or mixture of English varieties and date formats? (Yes or no, please.)
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)
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)
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
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)
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. Kanguole09:39, 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 Misplaced Pages'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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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.
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)
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)
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. Kanguole18:31, 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. Kanguole20:48, 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.
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Sandwiching
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:
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). Kanguole12:25, 25 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.
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). Kanguole15:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
In the Transport section, the high-speed trains seem more interesting than the row of plane tails. Kanguole15:16, 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.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)
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.
The Taiwanese government website says Republic of China (Taiwan) is its official name. News articles describe Republic of China as official name. In Misplaced Pages, should we describe the official name as Republic of China (Taiwan) or Republic of China, or both?
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, English translation of the constitution articles
Republic of China (Taiwan): Passport cover, English translation of the constitution title , Resident Certificate, websites of some government agencies, international trade agreements--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)
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. — MarkH2116:22, 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 reliableWP:secondary sources. Snow20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
From this 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. — MarkH2106:38, 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 reliableWP: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 Misplaced Pages 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. Snow14:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The primary source 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.Misplaced Pages. Snow19:57, 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). — MarkH2116:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Republic of China (Taiwan) The government website 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 . 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, 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
Sure, and the news reporter's written sentence disagree with what the MOFA spokesperson actually said in the press conference. The video is here, 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. — MarkH2106:33, 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 ". 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. Snow21:55, 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," --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 — MarkH2106:11, 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, 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.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:59, 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)
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, or its seat in the UN. 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.” 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. Snow23:22, 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:
'Peoples Republic of China' (PRC) <----> 'Republic of China' (ROC) <----> 'Republic of China (Taiwan)' <----> 'Taiwan' .
...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. Snow00:43, 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. — MarkH2101:00, 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. Snow03:11, 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)
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. — MarkH2116:15, 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 Misplaced Pages's policies has quite clearly not been met, or even begun to be met. Snow22:46, 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Snow11:58, 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? Snow11:58, 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. 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 Misplaced Pages: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). Snow22:56, 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. — MarkH2106:33, 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. — MarkH2118:31, 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 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)
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)
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"? --benlisquareT•C•E08:34, 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 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)
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? Snow12:24, 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). 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)
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)
Republic of China (Taiwan): If the government in question uses that name, that's its official name. This is less a judgment issue as a semantic one, and the semantics of official means that provided officially by the nation in question. If they use "Republic of China (Taiwan)", we should too. PickleG13 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Adding four secondary sources for Republic of China (Taiwan)
-"Taiwan declared itself ... under the official name of Republic of China (Taiwan)"
-"Most countries around the world do not allow the use of the official name Republic of China (Taiwan)"
-"Taiwan is a full member under its official name, the Republic of China (Taiwan) "
-"The name...will be used...after a first reference to the nation by its formal name, the Republic of China (Taiwan) in the first paragraph."
--Visaliaw (talk) 13:40, 24 July 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.
Just something to point out
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 "Misplaced Pages 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.
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 Misplaced Pages 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. Snow22:25, 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. Snow23:30, 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)
Huh I didn’t even realize that the Source List Tag 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. — MarkH2100:02, 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.") and France 24 says "de facto sovereign nation” . 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. — MarkH2107:18, 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. — MarkH2108:00, 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. Snow00:13, 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.
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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. Snow00:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)
Edit semi-protected
To WiKi manager:
This editing request is from Mainland Affairs Council Taiwan, presidential office transfer a website box letter by citizen said that some information need to be updated, because President Tsai took office sine 2016, during these past 4 years, "Relations with the PRC" has been changing a lot, but the old Taiwan introduction pages did not include this part, please help us to update the following information:
Under "Relations with the PRC" this part, please add this paragraph
Since President Tsai’s inauguration as the ROC’s 14th President on May 20, 2016, she has repeatedly affirmed the government’s commitment to handling cross-Strait affairs in accordance with the ROC Constitution and the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area. President Tsai has also stated that the purpose of maintaining the status quo is to defend the Republic of China (Taiwan). Under the current cross-Strait scenario, these positions form the greatest common denominator among the people of Taiwan, they also constitute a shared bottom line and basis of unity among the people of Taiwan. Surveys commissioned by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) over the years show that over 80% of the Taiwanese people support "maintaining the status quo defined in a broader sense," a level of support that has remained largely stable. This represents the biggest consensus in Taiwanese society. It also aligns with the common interests and expectations of the two sides and the international community.
In early 2019, the CCP proposed the "Xi's five points." It has advocated "democratic consultations" between the two sides to explore a "one country, two systems model for Taiwan" that leaves no room for the ROC’s existence. Beijing has further reiterated that using force against Taiwan remains an option. President Tsai has firmly stated that Taiwan will never accept these attempts by the CCP to undermine the cross-Strait status quo and extinguish Taiwan's sovereignty, and the vast majority of Taiwanese people also firmly oppose the CCP's proposals, such position in turn creates a "Taiwan consensus" among the Taiwanese society. On January 1, 2020, President Tsai emphasized "four musts" and "four understandings." She called on the people of Taiwan to unite and jointly face an external threat under "four musts": mainland China must face the reality of the ROC's existence; it must respect the commitment of the 23 million people of Taiwan to freedom and democracy; it must handle differences between the two sides peacefully, on a basis of equality; and it must be governments or government-authorized agencies that engage in negotiations. The "four understandings" refer to awareness that China is the one undermining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, not Taiwan; China is using the "1992 consensus" to undermine the ROC; sovereignty cannot be exchanged for short-term economic benefits; and Taiwan must be aware that China is infiltrating all facets of its society to sow division. It is an unwavering principle of Taiwan to resolutely reject Beijing's use of "one country, two systems" to downgrade Taiwan and undermine the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. The government in Taiwan also follows President Tsai's "guiding principles" in countering mainland China's "one country, two systems model for Taiwan." It has promoted the enactment of five national security related laws and the Anti-infiltration Act. It has also implemented a security network for democracy to protect people's livelihoods, information security, and democratic oversight to resolutely defend the nation's sovereignty and democratic system.
On May 20, 2020, President Tsai assumed office as the ROC’s 15th President. In her inaugural address, she laid out general strategic objectives for national survival and plans for nation-building over the next four years, focusing on areas of industrial development, fostering a safe society, ensuring national security, and deepening democracy in Taiwan. On national security, President Tsai proposed the maintenance of "peaceful, stable cross-Strait relations." She also expressed the hope that, the Taiwanese people stands as a community united to overcome challenges ahead. The President reiterated that Taiwan will never allow itself to be downgraded or for the status quo in the Taiwan Strait to be undermined under the CCP's "one country, two systems." This is the government's firm principle and bottom line in handling cross-Strait relations. The President stated that her administration "will not act provocatively or rashly," neither will it compromise in the defense of national sovereignty and security. Stabilizing cross-Strait relations is a shared responsibility of both sides; Taiwan has called on China's leader to bear relative responsibility, respect Taiwan's right to engage in the world, and rationally consider ways to advance benign cross-Strait interaction based on "peace, parity, democracy, and dialogue."
The PRC supports a version of the One-China policy, which states that Taiwan and mainland China are both part of China, and that the PRC is the only legitimate government of China. It uses this policy to prevent the international recognition of the ROC as an independent sovereign state, meaning that Taiwan participates in international forums under the name "Chinese Taipei". With the emergence of the Taiwanese independence movement, the name "Taiwan" has been used increasingly often on the island. MAC public opinion surveys have shown that an overwhelming majority of the Taiwanese people reject the "one country, two systems" (90%). More than 90% of the public also reject the CCP's diplomatic pressuring of Taiwan, its hindrance of Taiwan's involvement in the World Health Assembly (92.9%), and the multiple militarily threats it has made against Taiwan by dispatching military aircraft and ships to conduct navigation drills around the Taiwan area (91.1%). These figures indicate that the mainstream public opinion in Taiwan opposes the CCP's negative actions against Taiwan and hopes to participate with dignity in the international community.
Under "National identity" this part, please add this paragraph
In the latest survey conducted by the National Chengchi University in 2020 and published in July 2020, 67.0% of respondents identified themselves exclusively as Taiwanese, 27.5% identified themselves as both Taiwanese and Chinese and 2.4% identified themselves as Chinese. According to a MAC-commissioned poll in March 2020, the percentages of the Taiwanese public that regard the CCP as unfriendly towards the Taiwanese government and people rose to a 15-year high of 76.6% and 61.5%, respectively.
Hello, and thank you for your input. Please be aware that for the purposes of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, information should be supported by sources which contain all of the information added to Misplaced Pages. The links you have provided, while useful, cover only some of the information included in the text you have presented. Some information may also be too detailed for this overview article, although it may be a useful addition in other more specific pages. CMD (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Chipmunkdavis:. I'm a staff of Wikimedia Taiwan and help Amysayhello2011 to provide these information. Because I have communicated with her offline before, I can promise that she can understand the editor of Misplaced Pages may not accept all her requests. So editors of enwp can just add appropriate content according to your assessment.
And thought my my English reading ability is not good, I still can understand that the length of these requests is a little big to could confuse other editors. I'm sorry for that but that’s what Taiwan’s government departments may do sometimes. I'll ask some Taiwanese editor to look at here and try to shorten the text. However we still need help because some norms or habits may different between enwp and zhwp. Please assist us while we work.--Reke (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, it is good that this understanding is there. I have updated the National Chengchi University survey information from 2014 to 2020, as suggested, with slight modifications using the taiwannews source provided. When making text suggestions, it is helpful to provide sources establishing what is said. For example, by providing links to the various Mainland Affairs Council surveys mentioned. CMD (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I am a confused because the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area defines the Taiwan Area as the part of China "under the effective control" of the government of the Republic of China and the "Mainland Area" as the territory of the Republic of China that isn't. There is no mention that China and Taiwan are separate sovereign states. It seems more like two governments claiming control over all of China, but controlling different areas. TFD (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The "separate sovereign states" claim is just DPP's point of view and does not conform to the constitution or law of the ROC concerning cross-Strait relations. DPP is currently the ruling party of the ROC regime, by the way. --Matt Smith (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request
To WiKi manager:
This editing request is from Mainland Affairs Council Taiwan again, thanks for your suggestion, we shorten the introduction content in about 100 words, please understand that this update is necessary for wiki readers and here we request again your kindness help to update the following information:
Under "Relations with the PRC" this part, please add the following update content into third paragraph ( second paragraph.....the Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs)
Since President Tsai Ing-wen assumed office in 2016, she has stated clearly that the government will handle cross-Strait affairs in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC), the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area and other related legislations. Despite that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) proposed the “Xi’s Five Points” to facilitate the unification process to annex Taiwan in 2019, Taiwanese people have stood firm, refusing the “one country, two systems” formula on one hand, and pushing forward with implementation of the defense network for democracy and consolidation of the national security-related legislations on the other. The government has also repeatedly called on the CCP to rationally consider ways to advance positive cross-Strait interaction based on the principle of “peace, parity, democracy, and dialogue.” https://www.president.gov.tw/News/25319
The RFC discussion about the official name has died down and there is no agreement on what the actual official name is.
Given that there is no agreement, per WP:Inaccuracy, the assertion of the official name has a potential inaccuracy, and potential inaccuracy is a reason to reduce the due weight that is assigned to such material, thus it shouldn't appear in the first sentence.
Also, per WP:ONUS, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, so the disputed assertion of any official name should not be included without consensus.
Therefore, I propose to change the 'officially' in the first sentence into 'also known as'.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources which support the inclusion. Creating yet another discussion after your RfC failed to achieve the desired result is tendentious. CMD (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
That doesn’t mean repeatedly ask the same question over and over. This specific proposal has been discussed 4 separate times in the past three months, including two formal proposals from you in the past two months. Now you’re asking again only one month after an RfC (with 12 !votes for the current status, 6 or 7 !votes for the proposed, and 3 or 4 !votes for both or similar) was opened. — MarkH2104:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The RFC is about which should we describe as the official name, this section is about whether the first sentence should include the official name, which is a different question. (Though some participants in the RFC also talked about the first sentence) This proposal or other alternative solutions has not been thoroughly discussed in the RFC. Based on their arguments, those who voted for both would also support this change of the first sentence and then discuss the official name issue in detail later in the article. This proposal is not contradictory of the position of those who think that Republic of China is the official name either, not mention it in the first sentence does not imply that Republic of China is not the official name. Discussion of alternatives solutions is also suggested by SnowRise, who voted for Republic of China. The argument in this section is new too, I am saying that based on that there is no consensus on what is the actual official name in the RFC, disputed content should not be in the first sentence. --Visaliaw (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis reverted with the edit summary of "Rv removal of well-sourced information". WP:ONUS says While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The information well-sourced is not sufficient for inclusion. The RFC above does not have consensus to include the disputed assertion of the official name.--Visaliaw (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
No-one is building consensus for inclusion. The information in question has been included in this article for years. CMD (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Disputed information needs a consensus for inclusion, whether it is new or existing. WP:ONUS doesn't say it only applies on new content. Also it is inappropriate to start the article with a disputed statement.--Visaliaw (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Not quite. The official name has always been the "Republic of China", and there has always been sources for it. It has longstanding consensus. The discussion was about whether there was enough new sourcing to change that longstanding consensus wording to "Republic of China (Taiwan)". That is what died down without agreement. There wasn't a shred of consensus to change "officially the" to "also known as." And I have no idea where you get that "inappropriate" stuff. We have many many articles whose titles are heavily in dispute... just look at Kiev. Just because there is consensus for a title doesn't mean that it is not in dispute. We had to come up with some agreement and it is often the best we can do, but not perfect. The same thing here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
At best there might be a note attached that says "some sources seem to indicate the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)"... but that is another discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
There can only be and must be one title and titles are subject to WP:Common name, so that is the best to do or titles. But here we have a choice, we don't have to specify the official name in the first sentence. Use "also known as" communicates to readers the same name but avoid the official name dispute. We could leave the official name issue to a later section, where different usages could be described more detailedly, so we won't have to be forced to choose one official name for the conciseness of the first sentence. The "inappropriate" stuff comes from the idea of "Potential inaccuracy is a reason to reduce the due weight that is assigned to such material." in Misplaced Pages:Inaccuracy. Yeah the RFC question is not exactly the same question as inclusion, but people disagree on what the actual official name is in their arguments, so there would probably be also be no consensus if the question is "should 'ROC is the official name' be included". About whether longstanding should be treated as consensus in WP:ONUS, there was an RFC hereWikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_69#RfC:_WP:ONUS, there are mixed opinions.--Visaliaw (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
It has an official name so also known as is incorrect. And wikipedia has never worked that way. You are demanding a compromise and that doesn't always happen unless it is a biography of a living person where the guidelines are much more strict. If a sentence is challenged, and you can't convince enough editors to change it, then it doesn't change. You can put forth a compromise (like a note) here on the talk page and see if that flies since the RfC failed, but for the most part you did not convince editors that a change was warranted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how 'also known as' could be incorrect. 'Also known as' does not imply there isn't an official name. And I have no idea where you get that "how wikipedia works" stuff, but no consensus is not the same as failed.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The HDI figure is wrong. The UN subnational HDI is not appropriate for Taiwan as the stats provided by China are dated and thus inaccurate. The actual HDI of Taiwan is 0.911 calculated by Taiwanese authorities using the exact same metric UNDP used (life expectancy, GNI per capita adjusted by purchasing power parity, and expected years of schooling). See https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/02416246DBUFBVDH.pdf (released in 02/04/2020). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greysholic (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
This article should be split
Hello, I personally think that we should split this article into two separate articles being Taiwan (island) and Taiwan (The Republic of China). These two entities are very different and lumping them both into one article is pretty dumb.SirFlemeingtonz (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Note though that as many editors have pointed out, the "Taiwan Area" controlled by the government of the Republic of China contains more than Taiwan Island. Maybe we could call the two articles simply Taiwan and Republic of China. For the government section of Taiwan Area, we could say it is administered by the Republic of China. TFD (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Well it doesn’t really talk about Taiwan’s history or people or many other things needed for a good article on a place. And plus that still doesn’t excuse how this article lumps Taiwan and the ROC together. SirFlemeingtonz (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
SirFlemeingtonz, I think the geography of Taiwan article is pretty much the article that you are proposing. While it doesn't cover history, which is covered on History of Taiwan it does cover the people living on the island. And as the island and the country have pretty much the same territory, of course there is overlap when discussing the history and geography of the island in this article, but I don't think that the article lumps them together. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to moving this article per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. For the last seventy years the RoC has been the only government of Taiwan and Taiwan has been 99% of the territory of the RoC. Disentangling them would be impossible. A separate Taiwan (island) article along the lines of Great Britain seems reasonable though. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
If you insist on using UNDP's figure please provide UNDP's sources of Taiwan's life expectancy, expected years of schooling, and GNI per capita (adjusted for PPP). I bet you can't find it because the UNDP don't even disclose them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greysholic (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that in this context the Taiwanese governments numbers are better than UNDP. As Taiwan has a progressive and transparent democracy there isnt an issue of trust with their numbers like in dictatorships and single party states. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
You can reply to someone by using the colon, and it will indent it like this text. Please also sign your topics with four tildes (~). Although your point seems reasonable, the link leads to a page error. NickleSonic (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Greysholic: How did you come up with the conclusion that the UN (also a very highly regarded and reliable organization) would use skewed data while calculating the HDI for an entity which they have no connection with? Where are your sources? I still believe that data coming straight from the UN would be much more reliable than a calculation done by a country's own government. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk19:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:RSPRIMARY, Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. UNDP data, which is both reliable and INDEPENDENT of the Taiwanese government, is in this case the data that Misplaced Pages should continue to use. Taiwan shouldn't be the only country on Misplaced Pages to not use data published from the UNDP, just because of some editor's unsourced analysis and interpretive claims. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk19:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
But if the editor provides a couple reliable secondary sources that also makes the same claims free of WP:OR, than I will be happy to reconsider. But I am not the type of person to support a possibly inflated data value. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk19:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems like there is some confusion here — I figured it out, so let me try to explain. The value of 0.880 that the Misplaced Pages page currently uses does not come from UNDP. It comes from the Global Data Lab (GDL), which is the source that the Wiki page currently cites. GDL sources all its countries' data from UNDP, except for Taiwan, because UNDP does not have Taiwanese data (the GDL's academic publication detailing their database construction explains this: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201938). Thus, for Taiwan's data, GDL took the HDI values directly from the Taiwanese government website. The Taiwanese government clearly states an HDI of 0.911, as you can see from both sources linked above (the first link works now, I checked). However, for some reason GDL instead states an HDI of 0.880, which is incorrect. I contacted the director of GDL, and he responded explaining that they for some reason didn't find the Taiwanese government data in recent years, and the value of 0.880 was an extrapolation, which turned out to be incorrect. So that's where we are. The fact is that 0.911 is the correct value, and GDL would also state that value if it correctly sourced its data from the Taiwan government website. GDL says they will correct this error in the next update of their database. Masonwu1995 (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Can you provide the conversation you had with the director? If this is really the case, Misplaced Pages should only update the figure when the updated report becomes available, as sources must be published. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk00:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), also retroactively known as Free China especially prior to 1970s (see §Etymology), is a country in East Asia. LVTW2 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@CaradhrasAiguo: but the new edit did mention it was "retroactively" known as China. If you must put this phrase in, you would have to make them distinguishable.LVTW2 (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
_and_Ma_Kong_(DDG-1805)_shipped_in_Zhongzheng_Naval_Base_20130504b.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
Done Thank you for pointing this out! aboideau 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chūka Minkoku. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#Chūka Minkoku until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. KONNO Yumeto 05:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Not done: We don't mention "Red China" at People's Republic of China, a similar nickname is WP:UNDUE here in the lede. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)