Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 17 January 2012

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Taiwan has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 9, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 13, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed September 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed November 21, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted July 26, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 13, 2009 Good article nominee Listed July 14, 2009 Peer review Reviewed August 16, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Taiwan Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia (defunct) 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. Countries 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 WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Template:WP1.0

Talk:Republic of China/article guidelines

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 10, 2004 and February 28, 2011.

Beginnings on creating the articles

This is not a new proposal. I am just letting those know that the people who support the proposal can begin to design the articles should they wish to, without getting reverted. I created a subpage of my userpage so that we could begin to work out the details of this proposal and reach a general idea of what we want to do. Replies are not necessary here.

User:Jpech95/taiwan

Thanks. Jpech95 00:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is a good idea. JimSukwutput 14:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Let's iron out the contents properly in the subpages Jpech95 has created before we make any kind of major edits to the articles in question. If a good majority of readers and editors are happy about it, then I'll withdraw my objection and support the move. However, may I suggest that you separate them into individual subpages to not make it too cluttered when people are contributing content? If possible, please also create a Nationalist Government of China (1928-1949) article to fill in the void since we only have two proper articles that cover the 1912-1928 period. Thanks. **Update** Sorry, did not realize that a new Nationalist Government article was created. Please ignore my earlier request on that.Raiolu (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, it is good to know that people like my idea, because I feel that if we can't show what we're talking about (because the changes are somewhat drastic) we'll never be able to complete this. So yes, I am working on creating this, and I would happily creating subpages of this subpage when the articles become lengthy, if we want to make it the full article. First I'm going to need people to help out, of course. Thank you all. Jpech95 23:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Update

I hope that the silence on this page doesn't mean that we've stopped the proposal because on my userpage we have made extensive progress on the pages in question. I am hoping that any users that want to help create or dicuss what they want seen (or not seen) done to these articles, please visit the page and help out! User:Jpech95/taiwan and User talk:Jpech95/taiwan. Jpech95 22:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I see your "Taiwan" article is about the sovereign state commonly known as "Taiwan", which I think is a good improvement. If more justification is needed for this change from the status quo, perhaps producing a list of reliable sources which use "Taiwan" as the country vs. the island, would help (an analogous list was produced in the China / PRC discussion). Mlm42 (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Still the most critical issue, which you evade each time, is not solved in your proposal: you created a mythical difference between User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan and User:Jpech95/taiwan/Republic of China.

1. At first you explained the difference as "Republic of China as it existed between 1911 and 1949 was not Taiwan", and split one entity into two by setting an arbitrary year 1949.

   This is confusing - you can't say the Republic of China before 1949 is the Republic of China while the Republic of China after 1949 is Taiwan since the ROC controls a lot of territory of mainland China even after 1949, and since the ROC controls Taiwan since 1945.

2. This time you claim that "Republic of China" is the name of the government of User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan.

   This is even more confusing because we say that the Second Sino-Japanese War is a war between the Republic of China and the Empire of Japan, not a war between the government of User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan and the Empire of Japan.

Anyway, by no means can you split a single entity into two arbitrarily, which is original research. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The proposed article is here. You might try reading it before commenting on it, you know. No, there is no artificial division of anything in 1949. The article begins the story with the settlement of the island pre-historic times, runs through Dutch, Ming, Qing, Japanese, KMT, etc. and finally brings us up to the present, all formatted in the manner that I believe is conventional for a heavy-duty nation-state article. Kauffner (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan inherite the soverienty-state-properity of ROC - this is the main issue. You must describe the difference between User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan and User:Jpech95/taiwan/Republic of China, the the two previous describe made by Jpech (the first being 1949-split-rule, the second being government-rule) failed. You mentioned the article is a "story with the settlement of the island pre-historic times, runs through Dutch, Ming, Qing, Japanese, KMT", so:

1. If we follow Jpech95's controversial "is a sovereign state based on an island in East Asia"-claim, then the history of User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan should be dated back to the mainland period of ROC and furthermore the Qin, Han, Tang, Yuan, Ming, Qing dynasty China, and Dutch should never be mentioned.
2. If we follow the story with the settlement of the island pre-historic times, runs through Dutch, Ming, Qing, Japanese, KMT, then User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan should not be described as a sovereign state, but a cultural entity.

So Jpech95's proposal is self-contradict (if you are writting a story, as you told me, you may ignore the contradiction, but since you're writting an encyclopediac article, the self-contradiction is fatal and makes the article very POV and controversial). The self-contradiction if due to his split of ROC-as-Taiwan and ROC-as-China - you can never take both into account if you let Taiwan inherat the soverign-state-status-of-ROC. Following my proposal, describe Taiwan as the free area of the Republic of China, then the contradiction is solved, because Free Area itself is a new concept after 1949. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's standard format to do it that way and the same issue exists with the other nation-state articles. The opening for France is, "The French Republic...is a unitary semi-presidential republic in Western Europe...." That's been true only since 1958, yet the history section starts off with Lascaux. Kauffner (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

He was pointing out that Taiwan is not a nation-state, it's what people commonly refer the Republic of China as and "Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China(Taiwan), is a sovereign state based on an island in East Asia" is politically incorrect. Thus his suggestion free area of the Republic of China is politically neutral and works. Also creating an article that specifically states 'Taiwan is a country' is politically, socially and historically incorrect. As there is a big difference in saying "The Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan, is a country" and "Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China, is country". We have to consider that people on Taiwan are big supporters of either the Kuomintang that supports Chinese reunification with Mainland China or the Democratic Progressive Party that supports Taiwanese independence. Stating Taiwan is a country means the creation of the Republic of Taiwan which does not reflect the current political situation on Taiwan thus it's not neutral or correct.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Typhoon, if the KMT said tomorrow that a vote for President Ma is a vote for unification with China, he'd lose the election hands-down. The KMT is technically in favour of unification, but it is so heavily caveated that it is not a factor for a very large number of the people that vote KMT. Most Taiwanese vote according to domestic, not international (i.e. what to do about China), politics. For example, there was a Global Views survey from last year that indicated that support for unification is low even amongst KMT supporters. So if anything changing the article title would reflect the fact that Taiwanese do see themselves as being separate from China. John Smith's (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If they all voted for Taiwanese independence, China would invade them. Do Republic of China supporters believe Taiwan is a country? No. Do they believe the Republic of China/Republic of China on Taiwan/Republic of China(Taiwan)/Free area of the Republic of China is a country? Yes. Many support the status quo which the KMT also supports. We don't have the right to decide in what naming the Republic of China base on common name alone as Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral on this issue. That means we support both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China claims of being the legitimate government of China. If we decide to name the article 'Taiwan is a country' which the People's Republic of China shows great disliking to as shown in the Anti-Secession Law.; we are not being neutral as we don't recognize the claim by the Republic of China over Mainland China and it still doesn't reflect the current politics on Taiwan. If the DPP successfully renamed the Republic of China to the Republic of Taiwan then the issue is fine and then we can use 'Taiwan is a country'.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Back in the 1960s, Taiwan was called "Nationalist China". The names "Republic of China" and "ROC" are just confusing to English speakers and have never been common usage. When the ROC lost international recognition, it could not be called "China" anymore. The usage became "Taiwan", for example in the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. So the reasons for using the name "Taiwan" have nothing to do with internal Taiwanese politics. Nowadays "Taiwan" is just the name of the state, used by everyone from the CIA's World Factbook, (the authoritative source for country names, according to CMOS), to President Ma's Website, Xinhua, and Britannica. Do they all support Taiwanese independence? Kauffner (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's already an independent sovereign state by the name Taiwan, why would any step towards Taiwanese independence lead to war? And if Taiwan is the name of this country, why are Kinmen and Matsu excluded from the definition of Taiwan and therefore not covered by the Taiwan Relations Act? Why did Taiwan pretend to be China way into 1971 in the United Nations, and until 1978 in its relations with the United States? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not misinterpret: Xinhua didn't refer the state as Taiwan, nor do Brittanica. Xinhua refer Taiwan as an entity, while Britanica says “Taiwan, Chinese (Wade-Giles romanization) T’ai-wan or (Pinyin) Taiwan, Portuguese Formosa, island located about 100 miles ...” and entitled “Taiwan (self-governed island)”. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot imagine why Xinhua would consider Taiwan to be a sovereign state. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It does point to Taiwanese independence because of either creating a article saying 'Taiwan is a country' or moving Republic of China to Taiwan is incorrect and wrong. In all definitions Taiwan is a country but in name because Taiwan belongs to China; hence China belongs to both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China as both have legitimate claim to the land. As Misplaced Pages has to be clearly neutral on the issue we have to recognize both claims. No matter how confusing the names are. If we do continue then pick a politically neutral name like Free Area of the Republic of China as it doesn't causes any major issues with either the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Upon thinking about the name, renaming the article Taiwan will be really historically inaccurate as this page is dedicate to the Republic of China as a nation from 1912-today. Renaming Republic of China to Taiwan means "Taiwan governed all of Mainland China in 1920", "Taiwan is the successor of the Qing Dynasty after the Xinhai Revolution", "Taiwan fought bitterly against Japan in the Second Sino-Japanese War" is so wrong and incorrect as Taiwan at the time was a colonial possession of Japan.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Taiwan article is being rewritten as we speak to ensure that it doesn't cover Chinese history. That's sort of the point of what Jpech and Kauffner are doing.

I've also noticed that the China article includes a reference to the ROC and two articles on the ROC (1912-1949 and History of). That means there's also no need to discuss the pre-Taiwan history of the ROC. John Smith's (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is. Under the POVTITLE and COMMONNAME rules, including ROC 1911-1949 into the Taiwan article is the NPOV thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If Jpech and Kauffer is removing Chinese history, why is there a Qing Dynasty rule section? Qing is Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Taiwan including the Pescadores has been de facto part of the Republic of China since 1945. What do you mean by pre-Taiwan? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How would you feel if we divided American history up and started with the American Civil War? So people could better understand it. Even though it's American history and belongs together so you can have the full story and understand it.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

First, if that's what Misplaced Pages decided then I'd have to accept it. Second, it wouldn't make any sense because the current article on China encompasses all Chinese history and there's no attempt here to break that article up. John Smith's (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet we don't use it that way and no one would understand it if it was setup that way. This isn't about the 'entire Chinese history'; this about the Republic of China's history as a country.71.184.217.18 (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I still think the right course of action should be for the ROC to be a straight renaming to Taiwan under POVTITLE and COMMONNAME. However, in addressing the Japan issue, I do not see why Qing and KMT are split; Qing is Chinese, KMT is Chinese. The article should have a Chinese Rule section with Qing and ROC under it and with a separate Japanese rule section. Or maybe the Japanese rule section should be split out into its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Qing Dynasty lost Taiwan to Japan in the First Sino-Japanese. Since the end of First Sino-Japanese War til Japan lost the Second World War Taiwan was a colonial possession of Japan. The Qing Dynasty, a Manchu dynasty, was overthrown in the Xinhai Revolution creating the Republic of China. The Republic of China didn't gain control of Taiwan until 1945.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That's aboslutely correct, and we're not denying that fact. For those who don't know, yes, the island was not controled by the country until the year 1945, but then in 1949 that's all they countroled, so that is more than enough time to call the country, informally, Taiwan. Jpech95 23:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"but then in 1949 that's all they countroled" - No. In 1949 the ROC still controlled many islands along the coast of the continent, such as Hainan, Chusan, Tachen, Wanshan. Kinmen, Wuchiou, Matsu, Pratas, Itu Aba, etc., are retained till now. None of these islands are 'Taiwanese' no matter before or after 1949. Apart from these coastal islands, there were also isolated pockets within the continent, such as those along the border with Burma. These apparently have never been Taiwanese. Beyond the territorial point of view, the ROC had the China seat in the UN Security Council until 1971, US recognition as China until 1978, and is still having diplomatic relations as China with more than 20 other states, including the Holy See. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My point was to have a Chinese Rule section and a Japanese Rule section. Qing and ROC are both Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't fighting the issue instead informing the IP. I don't mean to insult the IP, but reading the Taiwan(island) under the section Empire of Japan rule would have cleared the issue.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

When did Taiwan become Taiwanese and no longer Chinese? 1945, 49, 88 or 96? And when did Kinmen, Matsu, Wuchiou and Pratas become Taiwanese and no longer Chinese? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

I see that the new Taiwan article is nearly done. Indeed, is there much left to do with it? John Smith's (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully not too much, now we're working on what is going to be in which article. Your help is welcome. Jpech95 01:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Under the POVTITLE and COMMONNAME conventions that were used to convert China to the PRC, the ROC 1919-1949 article should be merged into the new Taiwan article. This would, under POVTITLE and COMMONNAME not be a violation whatsoever of NPOV and would, in fact, foster greater continuity of English Misplaced Pages's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Taiwan is a country established by Dr Sun Yat Sen in 1912. From 1928 onwards it had its capital in Nanking. It did not rule the island of Taiwan until 1945, when it, as a member of the Allies, won the Second World War with Japan. China broke away in 1949 as another country but they left the a few islands near its coast, namely Kinmen, Matsu, Wuciou and Pratas, behind to Taiwan. Despite losing the landmass of China, the Taiwanese government continued to pretend to be China, and went on to sign both the Treaty of Taipei with Japan and the Sino-American Mutual Defence Treaty as China. It also occupied the China seat in the UN Security Council from its founding in 1945 until 1971, when the General Assembly voted not to let it pretend anymore. Is that correct? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This was all discussed before when the China article was made to be just the PRC... oh wait. This WASN'T discussed... was it? Regardless, under POVTITLE and COMMONNAME, moving ROC 1911-1949 is the most NPOV thing to do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I see that the tactic of completely ignoring opposing voices, which is growing by the minute, continues to be employed shamelessly by some supporters of this proposal. When Jpech95 made available his user page for experimenting with a new article I regained a little bit of good faith for you people. You have completely squandered that. Let me state unequivocally that I would oppose without question any edits made in line with this proposal until you address the numerous concerns raised above by Yu Hai, Typhoonstorm95, and several IPs. Either you do that, or we take this through an official dispute resolution process. JimSukwutput 20:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, the official policy stating that we use ROC as the name of the state is on WP:NC-TW, and it is clearly stated that disputes about naming conventions should be discussed on the policy talk page. Since this move clearly involves a changing of the naming convention, I do not understand why we are restricting this discussion to here. JimSukwutput 21:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Better start that dispute resolution process now. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I don't see this opposition that is "growing by the minute". In any event, it's clear that there will always be opposition on this issue. Either you're in favour of referring to Taiwan as "Taiwan" or the "Republic of China". In order to please everyone the articles on all those titles would have to be blank. But as I've said many times, it was clear that Readin's proposal gained consensus. I don't see why some people find that so hard to accept. John Smith's (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not a popular vote. It involves efforts from both sides to actively debate on differences and trying to resolve them. One side so far has failed to address criticisms and avoided debates; instead, you scream "consensus" as if a 3 day poll of one proposal out of dozens somehow gives you the right to withdraw from all discussions and implement whatever edits you have in mind. That is simply not how Misplaced Pages works; if you cannot understand this, you do not have the maturity to work in this project. JimSukwutput 13:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is also NOT unanimity, and you know that. Sometimes the minority has to accept that their views, whilst considered, have been ultimately discarded. I find it amazing that you believe you have a veto on this for some reason. John Smith's (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not vetoing anything. I and other users have been raising more and more objections, specific about the implementation of the move, which you have repeatedly failed to address. You claim that these "views" are discarded; yet you have avoided almost all discussions by other users on how exactly to implement your "consensus"-driven move, and claimed to have some imaginary consensus about a change which you have no idea how to implement. I would be a little more forgiving if you even have a solid proposal for how to move the articles' content specifically, but right now everything is worded so vaguely that there is nothing I could possibly even support. What else can I do but say Please stop and tell us what the hell you're trying to do? Do you expect me to say "Since a vaguely worded proposal by another user has some support votes, I'm going to let User:John Smith (or some other user) implement whatever changes he has in mind?" How much history are you going to put in the ROC article and how much in the Taiwan article? Do we mention Japanese colonization in the island article or in the Taiwan article? Are we going to create separate articles for different eras of the ROC? How many users have even heard of Jpech95's sandbox articles and how many writers with expertise in this project have you invited to participate in them? JimSukwutput 03:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please consider how misguided your actions are before you proceed. This sentence in particular is anachronistic to the point of absurdity: Taiwan is a country established by Dr Sun Yat Sen in 1912. As I pointed out, the question of whether Taiwan is or should be separate from China is so sensitive that I can't see any reason Misplaced Pages should be involved in it. Wendin (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Another testimony to the amusing and absurd lack of perspective from a few particular editors in this discussion, despite their vocal insistence that they know everything there is to know about the topic and does not need the assistance of experienced members of the project. JimSukwutput 10:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That was meant to illustrate how ridiculous it would be like if this article is moved to Taiwan. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal

I propose we rename the current China article back to the People’s Republic of China, and create a new China or China (civilization) article which will be separate from the People’s Republic of China and Republic of China. This page will serve as a disambiguation page for the two countries. This is based on how several different languages (French, Polish, German, Russian, Simplified Chinese Characters, etc.) of Misplaced Pages did to combat the confusion of the Two China States. If you what an example of my proposal look here (French) http://fr.wikipedia.org/Chine and here for Chinese version (Simplified Characters) http://zh.wikipedia.org/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B. Remember to scroll down until you see the separation of the two countries. To separate the differences of the Two China States the page will be in a similar format as the French and Chinese pages. This is a basic rough draft version of what the page will look like.

"As a result of the Chinese Civil War, two China States were created.

[Republic of China- governs Taiwan, Matsu, Penghu, Kinmen and other islands (brief summary of the country).]”

This will instantly clarify the difference between the Two China States, avoid causing issues with ROC supporters and respecting Taiwan's political status. It will also serve to mention the entire history of China. Therefore, there will be a section of modern history but it will only describe the important events that happen in China (e.g., the Xinhai Revolution, Chinese Civil War, the Great Leap Forward, etc.). We should not mention the important events in great detail as there are already articles dedicated to those events. The current PRC page will either reduce or remove the background history (e.g. Chinese dynasties) and will mention the general history of the PRC in greater detail than the China or China (civilization) article, and the ROC page stays as it is. We will be basing the China or China (civilization) article on the French and Chinese version of the article as a guideline.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the move that was done will probably be permanent. The proposals you make are akin to the old China article, where neither the PRC nor the ROC occupied the title of "China". That article was suprisingly stable for quite a while up until that move proposal/merger of PRC into "China". I do not believe that the move actually solved much, as evidenced by the fact that there are still problems with it. This article is changing, too, however. As discussed in the headers above, from what I understand, it is likely that this article will be renamed "Taiwan", the "Republic of China" article will simply discuss the government, and the current "Taiwan" article will become "Taiwan (island)". I believe the old status quo is best, however, if consensus is to change them, then we cannot stand in the way of the majority.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Let us see if my proposal gains enough support. If it doesn't then we don't go forward with it.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It won't gain much traction. You'll hit the Great Walls of POVTITLE and COMMONNAME; for a nominally "open and free" library, the Admins at the "China" article are being stubbornly autocratic and they actually made their decision counter to the consensus. If the China article is going to be changed to your proposal, it will have to be decided by those with authority over the 3 Admins who made the change in the first place. That's really the only way that I can see it being changed at this point and after all this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

So much for Misplaced Pages, The "Free" Encyclopedia. Raiolu (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a sad day for any serious editor in this project when three admins with no expertise whatsoever in a subject area can ignore an overwhelming consensus at will. As for this proposal, I strongly support it. It will be an improvement even over the previous version of the article, and a hell lot better than the nonsense we have now. JimSukwutput 13:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So those admins have absolute powers that the common man like us have no choice but to conform and obey? Dictatorship of the internet? In anyway, what's done is done. Maybe you peeps might wanna help out in the draft articles currently in construction in Jpech95's userpage. Oppose or not, it's still a chance to construct a "new" article that might be able to satisfy a majority of us. As the saying goes, you won't know until you try. Raiolu (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not just about absolute power. There needs to be someone making decisions, so I'm fine if we ask a few users to make these decisions, and I agree there are people who will be disappointed and there's nothing we can do about it. But I'm agitated about how utterly clueless those three admins were; all three were North Americans with no experience whatsoever in the China project. I mean no offense absolutely to those three admins, who as far as I know are extremely competent people; but the matter of the fact is that they had a poor understanding of what's going on and made an obviously uninformed decision with their power, against years of consensus. For example, here's what one of the three admins said in his final judgment: "the China article should contain a reference to the fact that the ROC also claims to be the legitimate China (assuming that they do that)". Of course ROC still claims to be the legitimate China! They've been doing that for exactly a century, and that's exactly why a lot of people believe the move should not take place! If one has to make "assumptions" about central counter-arguments such as this, how do you expect them to see through the 60 years of political and propaganda warfare well enough to make a sensible judgment? What they've done is to avoid the complications (and it is an extremely complicated issue) and choose to fall back on an easy Misplaced Pages policy "POVTITLE" and "COMMONNAME" and claim that it applies without qualification. That's a lazy route, and an extremely poor course of action; it seems to be the same lazy route being taken by many users here. JimSukwutput 03:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Jim, there was ample time in the move discussion for you to enlighten any "clueless North Americans" about intra-Chinese politics. You and the opposers made a good effort, but it just wasn't convincing enough. I have the feeling that, rather than you and the others having some esoteric Chinese knowledge that would turn the tide of consensus, that you are stuck in some 1950s time warp where the Kuomintang dictatorship actually pretended to be the government of all China. If the reformed government in Taiwan really still does this, then the opposers would have more reliable sources to bear than just the 1946 ROC constitution. Supporters of the China move have a huge battery of English-language sources that they point to to fortify their position. Where are your sources? Shrigley (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Jim and others of us who are stuck in a 1950's timewarp. I encourage you to look at the other language Wikipedias, from what I've seen with the exception of Cyrillic Misplaced Pages (comprising former Communist States), few if any other Wikis have made the PRC as the "China" article. The only ones I've been able to find are, as I mentioned, English and Cyrillic. I'd say, if anything, those people who think the PRC should be the "China" article are the ones in the minority in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

@Shrigley. It's not just people who support the Kuomintang who recognize that the current state governing Taiwan is the ROC. It's entirely possible to recognize that the two states separated from the straits are both Chinese states (and hence it would be ridiculous to call one of them China) without supporting one over another. As an example, almost all Taiwanese refer to Mandarin as "national language", yet many of them couldn't care less about Kuomintang's 1950s-era claims. JimSukwutput 02:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone here recognizes that the ROC is the state governing Taiwan. That's not the point. The more general country concept is "Taiwan" to a general readership audience - and most sourcing as well. The introductory article on the country should be called Taiwan. The text in the Taiwan article is about the island, not the country. The text in the ROC article is a mish-mash about the country and the state. General readers don't split semantics about countries and states. This situation does a disservice to a lay readership. That's who Misplaced Pages is written for and why the current article titling fails. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Pandering to an woefully (possibly wilfully) ignorant populace will still fail in the end. Smacking an untruth to article titles and then proceeding to present a clear contradiction within the article text is not preferable to sticking to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth the whole time. And no, as has been said repeatedly, Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. GotR 04:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not an untruth. That's the way our sourcing describes the situation. Misplaced Pages reflects, not directs. If the populace is woefully ignorant then the way to educate them is to lead, not obfuscate behind partisan hypercorrect names they don't know to look for. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think you underestimate the intellectual curiosity of the "lay readership". It is far easier for someone who believes in a "China-Taiwan" distinction to spend some time and figure out why we use PRC-ROC than for someone who believes in a PRC-ROC distinction to come to terms with why we consider China to be PRC. That's why we refer to it as "dumbing down" the content - not because we make it easier for the "lay readership" but because we are introducing ambiguities. JimSukwutput 06:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"than for someone who believes in a PRC-ROC distinction to come to terms with why we consider China to be PRC" Misplaced Pages doesn't pander to people who find it difficult to come to terms with such things. Life is hard and sometimes our views aren't accepted by others. If people can't live with that, they should consider setting up their own version of Misplaced Pages that reflects their views of the world to the exclusion of the opinion of others. That or seek therapy so that a professional can explain things to them. John Smith's (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you apply the same argument to anyone else who finds a neutrality issue on Misplaced Pages? Do you even recognize that we have WP:NPOV? Your trolling is pathetic. JimSukwutput 21:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but that's not what I said. You suggested that Misplaced Pages needs to make allowance for people who have not "come to terms with why we consider China to be PRC". People can raise whatever objections they like, but they also have to come to terms with the views of others, even if they're not happy with them. John Smith's (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The entire point of Taiwanese independence is to create Taiwan as a country. Nobody would understand why are they trying to gain independence when they are already a country and says "Taiwan, officially known as Republic of China, is a sovereign state". Well anyone who knows basic English grammer knows that statement between the commas is additional information that can be remove and the sentence would still make sense. Thus it's saying "Taiwan is a sovereign state". Let me be clear "Taiwan is a country" doesn't exist which is the entire point of Taiwanese independence to make Taiwan a country so it can be recognized by the UN. The "Republic of China is a country" does exist and has existed since 1912.71.184.217.18 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Even Taiwanese independence supporters would be unsatisfied by this naming convention. If Taiwan is already regarded as a country, that preempts their entire political movement and makes their support pointless. JimSukwutput 00:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not true. See this quote by Chen Shui-bian: "Taiwan does not have to declare independence because it is already independent". Shrigley (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Then why doesn't the UN accept Republic of China into the UN as Taiwan since it's "independent"? Oh yeah the official name still says it's China and former president Chen Shui-bian tried to have the Republic of China under Taiwan. Which was unsuccessful as show in this article,UN rejects Taiwan's membership bid . Former president Chen Shui-bian is no longer in power in the Republic of China. The opposition, KMT, currently has strong hold in government again. As we know the KMT supports gradual reunification with Mainland China. So most moves by the DPP have been erase by the KMT.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The United Nations rejected the membership bid of Taiwan due to the One China policy exercised by China, which has a large influence over the UN body due to its position on the UN Security Council. Because diplomatic ties with Taiwan are limited by the policy (in that recognition of one side means no recognition to the other), most nations maintain official ties with the larger state, and thus voted against the Taiwan bid to enter the UN. Even if a vote within the UN granted membership, China still has veto power as a member of the Security Council. In short, it's not that Taiwan wasn't accepted, it's that Taiwan CANNOT be accepted due to policies enforced by China in the international community. Kirby173 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We all know that the government in Taipei isn't nominally recognised. Yet we all know that most countries have got around nominal unrecognition and maintained de facto ties with Taipei. They got de facto embassies there, they sell arms to the armed force there, and they accept the passports issued by the Taipei government. 'Taiwan' is understood to be a euphemism to Republic of China, a name which they can't say because of their nominal acknowledgement or recognition of PRC's claims. They got their own difficulties because of their ties with Beijing. But why should we stick with euphemisms and disregard our official policy of neutral point of view? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's basically points one and two of Chen Shui Bian's 'Four Noes and One Without' pledge. He had had a lot of rhetorics and deliberate ambiguities. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by Cyrillic Misplaced Pages? There are quite a few languages written in the Cyrillic alphabet. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Who are having authority over the three closing admins? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place to rename the China article. You need to go to the talk page there. For myself, I don't think it's a good idea. I support Jpech's work and look forward to seeing it implimented. John Smith's (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. This article has to change and adapt now that the PRC occupies the "China" article. Now, as I understand it, after said changes have been implemented, the two states will be at "China" (PRC) and "Taiwan" (ROC). It does seem like a logical move after the recent changes. Do I think it was better in the former status quo? Yes. But that will not return, and I also see no other way forward now, but to make said changes, regardless of whether or not I agree. Consensus drives us to change this article, as it has (controversially perhaps) driven the "China" article to change. So we must move forward.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is EXACTLY the place to discuss the renaming/reverting of the China article. The ROC and the PRC used to be China in the article. The ROC was completely ignored when the 3 Admins made their decision. The fact that the ROC still exists and it is China but is no longer named China is the whole issue here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not the place to discuss it. You cannot rename the China article without gaining consensus on that page's talk page. Even if there was agreement here to rename the China article to "People's Republic of China", it wouldn't allow the China article to be so renamed.

Furthermore, I've seen that there's already been discussion on the China talk page on how the move was "wrong". There was no consensus to move the article back. John Smith's (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sour grapes, and wrong talk page. Despite having China in the name, the ROC simply is not ever referred to as China except in fringe cases. "Taiwan"? Yes. "Chinese Taipei"? Yes. Long form "Republic of China"? Yes. But "China"? Almost never. Griping about this is griping about reality, and continuing to assert that the claim to the name is equal and demanding equal treatment based on unequal claims will pin the complainers to a fringe view. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The claim is equal under the 1992 Consensus. And 1.3 billion Chinese people call it Taipei, China. 1.3 billion people don't call the PRC "China", they call it Mainland or Middle Kingdom. Is Misplaced Pages now in the business of determinig unilaterally what a country should or should not be called?

Nope, it's in the business of following what it is called. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Then the "China" article should be called 'The People's Republic of China'. All official documents will support my claim and a whole host of unoffical documents and information sources. In order to be truly NPOV on this issue, either the "China" article needs to be renamed 'People's Republic of China', it's official name, or this article needs to be a straight rename to "Taiwan", it's COMMONNAME.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You've obviously not seen our source list, showing the country's common name. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Then we're in agreement. This article should be a straight rename to "Taiwan". Any of the sources for "China" would show The Republic of China as "Taiwan". The "ROC 1911-1949" article should be merged into here as well.

What about the island known as Taiwan? The non-UN-member sovereign state hereinafter known as Taiwan covers Kinmen and Matsu as well. If someone comes in to look for geographical information about the island known as Taiwan, should the Taiwan article be renamed Taiwan(island) following the move from ROC to Taiwan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes to "Taiwan (island)" are currently being prepared. John Smith's (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of principle and consistency, we should at the same time merge United Kingdom and Great Britain and rename it as Britain or England, break off some of the materials and content from there and move them into United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and radically change how that article is organised. We may rename it into United Kingdom (1801-1922/1927) too. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You can do whatever you like. But you would have to start a move/merger proposal on those pages. Good luck. John Smith's (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

For those who don't support the merger of the Republic of China and the Taiwan articles, they don't have any burden to do the same thing with the UK articles. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP is exactly correct. If advocates here believe that WP:COMMONNAME's recommendation of using common names applies to every situation unequivocally, it is only natural that they should start up similar proposals at Great Britain (->England), or United States (->America), or Republic of Macedonia (->Macedonia). If they truly are simply editing objectively according to Misplaced Pages policies (never mind that they have been consistently ignoring WP:NC-TW), why haven't they started up similar proposals across the site? Or could it possibly be that there are some ulterior motives at work here, that supporters of this renaming might have some political goal in mind? Could it be that two of the most vocal supporters of this move are notorious PRC nationalists on Misplaced Pages and another two are Taiwanese independence supporters, hence forming an unholy alliance against the ROC name? JimSukwutput 22:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh definitely, but that doesn't matter, because in the end it was the strength of the argument not the motives that was evaluated. In regards to your three examples, I challenge anyone to provide a comprehensive list of reliable mainstream sources that's half as good as the one we have for China for a move of Great Britain to England of United States to America. If you can, then there's a case, but you can't. As for Macedonia, that's disambiguation, as the Greek province of Macedonia is also commonly called Macedonia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He knows that, but do us Americans and English speaking people really care about a little naming dispute between the countries Greece and Macedonia? Nope. Do most English speakers know the dispute? Nope. I honestly, I don't see the difference in doing that since you are changing the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China pages to common names.71.184.217.18 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the dispute. We have a country commonly called Macedonia. We have a province commonly called Macedonia. We have an ancient kingdom (which is not directly connected to either) commonly called Macedonia (and the kingdom may be the most well known one out of the three). Hence, all are called Macedonia, but with some form of disambiguation. Not at all similar to this situation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does that matter? You ignored the One-China Policy; the 1992 Consensus; Anti-Secession Law; the Republic of China's history; the Resolution 2758.71.184.217.18 (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you made an argument with Macedonia, so I showed you the difference. Misplaced Pages is not written to follow any specific laws (although it is under Florida jurisdiction), and those laws are tangential to commonname. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I was pointing out to you, doing this move goes against the Two China States. Showing no respect or sensitivity to this matter is what those three admins did and many of you who support this move and the move for the PRC's page. Again why should we care about little things like that for Macedonia, Great Britian and etc. since you are putting common names on the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China pages on this issue.71.184.217.18 (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The three admins followed[REDACTED] guidelines and policies. Misplaced Pages is not written to be politically correct. All the places you mentioned are titled by common names. Now China is too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

" All the places you mentioned are titled by common names. " - You sure that the article for the Republic of Macedonia resides at Macedonia, the article for the Republic of Ireland resides at Ireland, and the one for the United Kingdom locates at Britain? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

This has no relevance to the United Kingdom or Macedonia. The only comparison that makes sense is with the Republic of Ireland and the name Ireland, and although it's a good comparison since the solution there may be comparable, it's also flawed. The official name is not Taiwan. In fact the question of whether there is or should be a separate Taiwanese identity is so crucial to the internal politics of the ROC that I don't understand why we would force the issue just because Taiwan takes less effort to say/type and is therefore more commonly used in English. Please stop. Wendin (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Because saying Taiwan is a sovereign state goes against the PRC's argument that Taiwan belongs to China which is One-China Policy. If we can't adhere to this might as well delete all the articles I mentioned above.71.184.217.18 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with pressure from the PRC. The Pan-Blue/Pan-Green rivalry and the question of whether Taiwan should be Taiwan per se is hotly debated within the ROC itself. I'm new to Misplaced Pages's policies and such but am dumbfounded that anyone remotely familiar with the issue would support the proposed move other than to push an agenda as you seem to want to do. Wendin (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Under COMMONNAME, whether it's hotly debated in the ROC or in the PRC is irrelevant. Politics is irrelevant. I expect that those who agreed with the change from PRC to China to also endorse changing the ROC article directly to Taiwan. COMMONNAME either matters or it doesn'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Under COMMMONNAME for this issue violates the neutrality of Misplaced Pages by deciding who is the legitimate China and creating a nation that doesn't exist.71.184.217.18 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is appauling that "Ireland" is at the "Republic of Ireland" page.....The name of the State is not the "Republic of Ireland"!....A cabal of Brit editors however insist on this. 86.42.24.212 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: WN:COMMONNAME either matters or it doesn't.

I propose we settle the COMMNONAME matter on the PR and RO China articles once and for all; China was decided and left the ROC out in the cold. This article needs to be a straight rename to Taiwan, anything less undermines arguments over COMMONNAME on the issue of the PRC and the ROC. I fully expect those that agreed with the move from PRC > China to support this initiative as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I support moving this article to Taiwan, but I'm not as interested in pushing for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As do I, although there's only one of these tedious battles I can take at one time. There's an issue of how exactly we title the distinct pages about the island proper and the sovereign country/renegade province/true Chinese state - take your pick, I don't care - but we need to follow normal, mainstream, current usage here when it comes to basic article titles, as with "China". Flying in the face of that by using obscure terminology for the article name - however "official" it might be - out of some purported greater "accuracy" or "correctness" simply jars with the terminology and nomenclature that most people read and see everywhere else; and, pace the wailing, it in fact creates confusion rather than clarifying anything. Clarification is something that should be done in the body of text and via hatnotes that define the terms that we - following everyone else - are using, both as article titles, and in text elsewhere as appropriate, not through imposing unknown, archaic or obscure descriptions. And as for the broader question, I have no idea how, when and through who this naming convention got approved. Seriously - Taiwan only for the geographic island? "Side-by-side" constructions such as 'China warns Taiwan' "should generally be avoided"? Does anyone who agreed all that even read modern English language books or newspapers? N-HH talk/edits 23:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposal hasn't dyed out. The discussion you see here if more or less the same argument that's been going on for months. If you want it to go through, help us with our proposal we've set up at User:Jpech95/taiwan. This is what me as well as most of the supporters are working on to get this moving along. Jpech1995-2012 23:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In order for COMMONNAME to matter, this article must be a direct rename to Taiwan. Your article is skirting the COMMONNAME issue by providing the ROC during WWII as a link to a separate article; the COMMONNAME of the Republic of China is Taiwan. Also, there can be no ROC and Taiwan, they are the same place, like the "China" article, there should only be "Taiwan" under COMMONNAME. COMMONNAME either matters or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I have noticed that there is little progress on the article I titled Republic of China which makes me feel that it isn't necessary. The whole point was that I figured we should still have an ROC article, which could serve as basically, something akin to what the article French Fifth Republic does. Now when you said "your article is skirting the COMMONNAME issue by providing the ROC during WWII as a link to a seperate article," if you were refering to my Taiwan article (which I assume you were, and not my ROC article), I had looked into what you were talking about and that I did not see. During World War II, we refer to Taiwan as the island which was administered by mainly the Japenese until its surrender. Can you explain what you meant by that phrase I listed above? Thanks. Jpech1995-2012 02:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue present with the Republic of China is far more complex than what a simple rename of the article can accomplish. The Republic of China is like a government-in-exile of some sorts, having shifted from governing all of China to just Taiwan and its surrounding islands. As such, it shares only a fraction in terms of local culture and heritage that has extended further into the past, such as when Taiwan was under Japanese rule, or the Qing Dynasty. The Republic of China article cannot be treated in the same way as the People's Republic of China was. The PRC follows the Chinese government succession timeline, from Qing => ROC => PRC. However, the ROC failed to relinquish from existence, and has instead evolved into a completely different state since the events of 1949. This is why a simple COMMONNAME resolution cannot solve everything, and why this proposal has evolved into a more complex revamping of major articles with concern to the Republic of China and Taiwan. Kirby173 (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that the ROC historically encompassed mainland China, while ironically it did not cover Taiwan, means that any such renaming would be wildly inaccurate. Ngchen (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

But if we just name the country and what it used to be, what's the point? The ROC doesn't even assert its claim to China and Mongolia any longer, it is quite happy with the territory it has, as is most of the international community (including the PRC, to certain extents). The average reader doesn't know that much about Asian history and would have no idea that this Republic of China DOESN'T rule mainland China. It sounds like it. Although I accept keeping it here, it truly seems entirely unnecessary, especially with all the proposals before and now seeing that China was renamed (as controversial as some found it). Jpech95 02:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It no longer actively asserts its claims, but it still using the original constitution, applying the old laws, and preserving the old state institutions and organs. The name Republic of China is still printed on its passports, and so on and so forth. 10th October is still celebrated as a national day to honour the revolution and foundation of the Republic. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I oppose any move of this article (especially to "Taiwan"); "Taiwan" is a provice - whether it is a province of the ROC or PRC is debatable, but a province it is; not a sovereign state. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying it is, definitively, a fully sovereign state. In fact of course it has a slightly odd and ambiguous status and faces different claims from different places. However, whatever it theoretically "is" at some academic and esoteric level, "Taiwan" is nonetheless the term used overwhelmingly in respect of the geopolitical entity that this article purports to describe. What makes Misplaced Pages so special that, on the say-so of a few anonymous/pseudonymous editors, it should continue to call it something else entirely? We have rules on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which make perfect sense. Yes, technically Taiwan is also the name of an island - but what island nation is simply the one island? And, the whole point of this proposal is to have a "Taiwan (island)" article about that specifically; and, finally, we would still have other articles about the claimed "Republic of China", eg its history and government - we just would no longer be suggesting that the term is in common use to describe the nation-state/province/political unit/whatever known to everyone else in 2012 as Taiwan. This article, would, however, also note its status as official title, in the very first sentence. I don't see how better to combine clarity and accuracy (and without taking sides in any cross-strait politics). N-HH talk/edits 17:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The way that I see it, the 'common name' principle is primarily intended for, be it, cases where a person is known under another name than his formal or original name, be it Madonna instead of Madonna Louise Ciccone and Max Weber instead of Karl Emil Maximilian Weber. I have also seen this principle used to defend a historically incorrect, but today dominating spelling, Tordenskjold.

A country, on the other hand, should first and foremost be known by its official name, be it (Federal Republic of) Germany, (Kingdom of) Norway, (Republic of) China, etc.

Could it be a possibility to make Taiwan a disambiguation page linking to a) Taiwan (state), which today redirects to Republic of China, and to b) Taiwan (island), which today redirects to Taiwan?

--- Breadbasket (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There should be no change here. The "Republic of China" title is objective and neutral. Pretending the Taipei-based state is named "Taiwan" is ignoring basic historic truths and current political realities. People should drop this POV campaign. 86.42.24.212 (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I challenge you to try renaming United States to its official name. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There should be no change here. The "Republic of China" title is objective and neutral. Pretending the Taipei-based state is named "Taiwan" is ignoring basic historic truths and current political realities. People should drop this POV campaign. 86.42.24.212 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. The 99% of the world's people and media who know the country by its current common name of Taiwan are NOT expressing a POV when they call it that. To most of them the claimed "historic truths and current political realities" are irrelevant. People who ignore the practical truth I have just written actually weaken their case by doing so. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, people and media are not academical publications.

I think that the common name principle generally requires (1) that the person himself used or at least accepted the common name (Max Weber did, Republic of China does not) and (2) that the common name, although being widspread in the population, has some support in academical or official custom; a common name is not automatically synonymous with what one hears at the local pub.

This principle is no sort of 'by people’s preference', but the summa summarum of people, academic custom, official custom, etc. (In cases about persons, it is generally more relevant what people call him/her. In cases about states, it is generally more relevant what the official and the academical call it.) If for example the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States of America use the name Republic of China, Misplaced Pages should follow international custom.

--- Breadbasket (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledging Important Factors while Attempting to Simplify Matters (Part I)

I feel that the current discussion in regards to the Republic of China article hasn't resulted in any clear answers or statements from any parties in particular. The points have been shot all over the map, and at this rate no clear conclusion shall be reached. Below I present some background information and insight to this issue at hand while offering a somewhat simpler solution that may compensate for different parties in the above discussions.

What began as a discussion to rename this article (Republic of China) to a COMMONNAME of "Taiwan" raised many issues caused by the situation of articles in relation to the subject at hand. The current "Two China" situation is far more complex to address to the general public, which is why nowadays the Republic of China is referred to as "Taiwan", while the People's Republic of China is known as "China". Based on the international consensus, the PRC is the representing state to China as we've known in the past, and as such, the article formerly entitled by the government name "People's Republic of China" was renamed to simply "China". This caused issues with the "Republic of China" article, as the former 'neutral' stance of the Misplaced Pages articles had been shifted off balance, resulting in the calls for the ROC article to be renamed to "Taiwan". The main argument here is that because the People's Republic of China is now "China", the Republic of China must be "Taiwan", in order to maintain consistency. Another supporting factor is that the English-speaking international media identifies the Republic of China as "Taiwan" in most circumstances.

This on its own also creates its own set of problems based on the state of the Misplaced Pages article for the Republic of China. See, the People's Republic of China was fine when renamed to "China", because it occupies the vast majority of what a former unified Chinese state had encompassed, and is now considered to be the true Chinese state. The PRC follows the timeline in government succession, from Imperial China - Republic of China - People's Republic of China. We cannot treat the Republic of China in the same way, despite it clearly governing a separate set of territory to that of the PRC. The Republic of China is a former Chinese government that migrated to its current position after defeat in a war, and evolved into a completely new state under a drastically different identity. Today, it represents Taiwan and its nearby islands; back in the day, it represented all of China. The current Republic of China article does not reflect this representation sufficiently. The Republic of China article does not acknowledge Taiwan and its surrounding islands' deeper cultural heritage from prior to Republic of China rule, and as such has no accurate portrayal of its modern territory. It discusses its government history, from being the Chinese government to the government of Taiwan. This situation is truly unique to the Republic of China, and can draw very minimal similarities to other states around the world.

All of the above has then resulted in proposals to create and/or rename current articles to compensate for such massive and complex issues. Work has been seen going underway for a drastic shift at User:Jpech95/taiwan. A new article named "Taiwan" is created, discussing the history of the local region while encompassing matters of the governing state. From there, the current Taiwan article is moved to "Taiwan (island)". A separate article, regarding the ROC's government history will be under a new article entitled the "Republic of China". This is a very drastic move that will take an incredible amount of effort to fine-tune and execute properly. Problem here is that not all agree with such a major change.

Now, to a proposal that seeks to simplify the situation slightly while compensating for the need to have more action than a simple rename:

• Republic of China is renamed to Taiwan. In addition, the 'History' section is completely removed and transplanted with that of the current Taiwan article. The "Republic of China rule" subsection in the current Taiwan article will probably need to provide more detail in regards to the Nationalist rule under martial law and the eventually the democracy today. This allows the Republic of China article to fully function under the name "Taiwan", while matching the consistency with the People's Republic of China article under the name "China".
• The current history section in the Republic of China article, which discusses government history tracing back to its time as the Chinese state 1912-1949, can be extensively discussed under the article Government of the Republic of China. A link to that is already within the current Republic of China article. We should also keep in mind we have an article present discussing the Republic of China from 1912-1949 in existence as well, effectively eliminating the need to discuss that former government after the renaming. It will be acknowledged throughout the article that the state is officially the Republic of China, and as such, the government article can stay in its current form without issue of naming.
• The current Taiwan is simply moved to "Taiwan (island)".

This proposal mainly seeks to allow for the renaming of this current Republic of China to "Taiwan" to occur with minimal obstructions and effort. Since we have now reached a consensus that we shall no longer take the neutral route in having the "Two China" stance (seen in the renaming of the People's Republic of China to "China"), this also allows the Republic of China article to then firmly represent and reflect its current identity as Taiwan, and not that of a Chinese government (albeit it is technically the 'official stance').

While the former state of the China articles were more politically accurate and neutral, it by no means represents what a typical world citizen knows and understands. The renaming of People's Republic of China to simply China gives us no realistic option but to name Republic of China to Taiwan for consistency. I think only a select few disagree with the proposal to rename the ROC to Taiwan at this point, and that we must move forward with these discussions and make a decision in respect to the situation at hand. Kirby173 (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only that but there are overlapping timeline articles like 2011 in Taiwan and 2011 in the Republic of China that are based on the outcome of these moves. In theory after 1949 in the Republic of China, everything should have started at 1950 in Taiwan. Benjwong (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the current Republic of China should be merged with User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan article to become the Taiwan article. After that, the Nationalist rule section should be linked to Republic of China (1912–1949) directly. Taiwan after World War II would be a subset of that article. Looking at the current events. You can roll the red carpet for the KMT/ROC to take back the mainland and they are still uninterested. This move makes sense. Benjwong (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That would go against the proposal in that it creates more complications to resolve the issue at hand. The intended purpose for myself drafting this proposal is to minimize the changes needed in order to accomplish what is needed to maintain both quality and consistency. We must keep in mind that the articles are free to be edited and reformatted in the future as well; this proposal's goal is to efficiently manage everyone's time and to make such a renaming proposal from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan" is possible, seeing as it is the only logical route to take at this point in time. More so, fitting in the Nationalist Rule section under Republic of China (1912–1949) is entirely inaccurate in its own way, as the Kuomintang exercised martial law under an authoritarian government over Taiwan for three decades since its retreat in 1949. Kirby173 (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Then Nationalist ruling on the mainland will be left to contents within Republic of China (1912-1949). And Nationalist ruling of Taiwan island will be left to Taiwan after World War II. I see what you are doing now. Yes that would be consistent. Another words there is no more Republic of China article, just a link. That would match the fact that there is no more People's Republic of China article, just a link. Sounds good. Benjwong (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This solution still skirts the COMMONNAME issue by having a Republic of China (1912-1949) article. A true COMMMONNAME solution would be to have everything in 1 article called Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of this common name guideline appears to skirt historical facts. Wendin (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As a matter current history, how can a "China" article on Misplaced Pages exclude the Republic of China especially since the ROC hasn't faded into history yet? To have the "China" = PRC supporters tell it, COMMONNAME supercedes politics and history. I'll say it again: COMMONNAME either matters or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways. 159.53.78.140 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The majority of the participants here agree on this: the COMMONNAME of the Republic of China is "Taiwan". However, simply applying that would cause disruptions and inaccuracies that span across numerous articles in concern to the state. It isn't the case with the COMMONNAME issue of the People's Republic of China. I've noted it above. The PRC came in succession to the Chinese government timeline following the ROC retreat. It governs (figuratively) 99% of the geographical region known as China, and as such, is recognized as the Chinese state. Chinese history therefore integrates perfectly into the People's Republic of China article when it was renamed to "China". This is not the case here when we change Republic of China to Taiwan. The ROC article as it stands does not reflect the COMMONNAME "Taiwan"; it is still worded as if it was a government with the identity of "China" as well, which explains why these proposed changes must occur in order to accurately preserve the consistency found on Misplaced Pages, since the COMMONNAME 'China' has been taken. Everyone here realizes it can't be " both ways", and no one is seeking to do that. The thing is, there must be a divide thanks to the unique history of the Republic of China being the Chinese government pre-1949, and the government of Taiwan post-1949. The Republic of China evolved since 1949 so radically in terms of identity and government form, that, the only similarities it draws is that it is part of the same timeline. Directly changing to "Taiwan" will result in inaccuracies to all pre-1949 information. Not changing to "Taiwan" creates inaccuracies in parallel to the People's Republic of China being renamed to China. Your statement is true: it can't have it both ways. It's either "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China", or "China" and "Taiwan". However, to reflect the Taiwan COMMONNAME, the above changes listed in the proposal must occur. To not go through this, revert China back to "People's Republic of China", and reinstate the original China article that encompasses the geographical region and its history. Kirby173 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid we cannot define succession or ownership of China purely by geography. The PRC, e.g., was not economically important until the late 1970s in terms of global influences, at least not as important as the ROC. In foreign relations, without membership in the UN and most international organistions the PRC was also less influential than the ROC until the early 1970s. If we are to define succession or ownership of the concept of 'China' merely by geography, it is going to be as problematic as proclaiming the modern Russian Federation as the sole continuation of the history of the Soviet Union and of the Russian Empire. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the exact reason why the original state of the China articles were more accurate. If using your statement, how can one justify the People's Republic of China being renamed to "China"? Because that is its current identity. History has been re-written many times, and will continue to do so as society progresses. The People's Republic of China may not have had importance until the 1970s, but we are in the 2010s, under a completely different situation and timeline. We are not defining Chinese succession by geography, we are defining it by the current government situation, in which the People's Republic of China exercised authority over the Mainland, while the Republic of China failed to extinguish after Civil War and remained in possession of Taiwan. That is the blatant and inarguable truth. While, under "official" terms there can only be one Chinese state, that is not what modern society plays out as in a "unofficial" point of view. The world sees the PRC as China, the ROC as Taiwan. Citizens of each country believe in that stance firmly. I do agree that the situation does not reflect much of the events since 1949, but remember that this proposal only happened because the People's Republic of China article was named "China". The former "Two China" system with a unified article discussion the geographical region was perfectly fine, and yet the balance was shaken up due to the change of the PRC article. Your justification would apply back in the day, most definitely (and I do agree with it), however I believe you've failed to see the point in this renaming proposal: It is only happening because PRC became China. We must match the consistency with the ROC article to avoid even more confusion to the general user. That is why there is the proposal to have ROC become Taiwan. It's by no means reflecting official terms between the states, foreign relations, or historical events with complete accuracy, but it is the only logical step with the given situation. Kirby173 (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

But then we cannot rewrite history and say that 'Taiwan and the United States signed the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty in 1954', 'Taiwan and Japan signed the Treaty of Taipei in 1951', 'Taiwan is a permanent member of the UN Security Council between 1945 and 1971', 'Taiwan's official diplomatic ties with South Korea, South Africa and Saudi Arabia were severed in the 1990s', or 'Taiwan and the United States broke their official diplomatic ties in 1978'. There's basically no cut off point between 1945 and 2012 that the ROC was no longer ROC and had become Taiwan. And, FYI, regarding the move of the PRC article from 'People's Republic of China' to 'China' four months ago, the discussion at Talk:China to dispute the move is still ongoing. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So we don't. We explain that in article text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How? You guys are already going to create an article for the post-1949 ROC under the title Taiwan, and to break off all those information about the pre-1949 ROC to other articles, aren't you. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not creating an article entitled Taiwan. We are moving THIS very article to Taiwan for the above and below mentioned statements. We are not breaking off all the information to pre-1949 Republic of China. Our intentions have been laid out very clearly in this proposal. We rename the article to Taiwan, we transplant the history section from the current Taiwan so that the article reflects on its current territorial composition, and nothing else gets changed. The Republic of China remains intact as is, we're not altering anything, we're not renaming anything else. Anything such as "The Republic of China was a permanent member of the UN Security Council etc." will remain so. The ROC won't go away here. All the information will remain in access, and if those are interested in the history of the state, not the island of Taiwan, they can find it under History of the Republic of China, which is linked, and still will be linked, under the rename. We're not rewriting history. Kirby173 (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) With the title changed, we immediately create the confusions around when did the reference to this country change from 'ROC' to 'Taiwan'? At the time its seat in the UN was lost? Or at the time it broke off it ties with the US? Why don't we keep all content in place, move the island article to Taiwan (island), and turn the Taiwan namespace into a redirect or a disambiguation page? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Common names cannot supercede the principle of maintaining neutrality with, e.g., history and politics. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. However, how can you justify that with the China article then? Kirby173 (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

May I know what should be done under this proposal with the period between the retrocession in 1945 and the fall of mainland in 1949? As far as I know no one has actually addressed this point. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated before, all history aspects in regards to the Republic of China's government will extensively discussed under History of the Republic of China, or under other appropriate articles. This includes the Civil War period between 1945 and 1949. Other articles such as History of China also cover this time period extensively already, so no changes are needed. Remember that the proposal will not reject the existence of the Republic of China. All articles reflecting government bodies and history will still fall under the Republic of China name. It is just the main article will be changed to reflect the state's current identity as Taiwan under this proposal; this is the same move under the People's Republic of China article change. Kirby173 (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the 228 Incident, for instance? Does it belong to Taiwan or Republic of China (1912-1949)? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If I am reading this right. Then this is what the move would be. Please confirm.

• User:Jpech95/taiwan ---contents---> Taiwan
• Republic of China ---redirect---> Taiwan
• Old ROC contents from Republic of China ---move to---> Republic of China (1912-1949)
• Taiwan (island) ---is still---> Taiwan (island)

Benjwong (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The moves made by my proposal are as such:

• Republic of China ---rename and move---> Taiwan
• Taiwan#History ---cut and paste---> Republic of China#History (current article) / Taiwan#History (new article)
• Republic of China#History ---contents moved to---> Government of the Republic of China#History, History of the Republic of China, (Republic of China (1912-1949))
• Taiwan ---moved to---> Taiwan (island)

Main differences from the more drastic approach in a previous proposal:

• There will no longer be an article entitled "Republic of China". This follows the footsteps of the China article renaming that eliminated the article title "People's Republic of China".
• The notion to rename many aspects of "Republic of China" to "Taiwan" is eliminated. Government departments and titles remain under their original names, and will not need a redirect. ("President of the Republic of China" remains the same, instead of turning to "President of Taiwan") This also reflects what happened with China's article, where government information remained under the "People's Republic of China" titles.

Additional editing will obviously need to happen to readjust everything within the current Republic of China article. Various content from Jpech95's page can be transplanted if desired (I would move the Geography section into the current ROC article). I would also like to note I have a weak support in keeping the Republic of China (1912-1949) article, for separation of the two major eras of the country, and to allow for a place to provide details on the past events of the state. However, there are other viable options, such as migrating all the information into History of the Republic of China and Government of the Republic of China. Kirby173 (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the cut off point wasn't clearly 1949. Although the government of the PRC was officially established in October 1949, and the ROC was officially relocated in December 1949, the war continued way into the mid 1950s, with smaller scale battles until the 1960s and 1970s. After the conclusion of these battles the ROC is still possessing many non-Taiwanese landmasses at the present moment. The ROC had the UN seat and the membership in the Security Council until 1971 as China. It was recognised by the United States as China until 1978, South Korea, South Africa and Saudi Arabia until the 1990s; and it is still recognised by Panama, the Holy See, etc., as China at this moment. Furthermore, it is still using the original constitution, applying the old laws, and having the original institutions and state organs. De jure it is still carrying on the Republic of China. It is OR for us to regard 1949 (or 1945, too) as the point at which it became Taiwanese and no longer Chinese. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the cut-off of the "China" identity wasn't specifically 1949, but you have to realize that most of the control over the Mainland was effectively gone after the retreat. Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang maintained its stances throughout the martial law period in hopes that they would once again be able to return and take back the Mainland, a feat that was never able to be accomplished. The fact that the Cold War was still raging on meant that immediately recognition of the People's Republic of China over the Republic of China as the true Chinese state was impossible, seeing as the United States did not wish to make friendly ties with any Communist state in general. This evolved quickly after the United States switched recognition, as you've pointed out yourself. The truth here, however, is that while the "China" identity was maintained by the Republic of China government, it is widely regarded that the split from the Mainland in 1949. The Republic of China was no longer "China" since its retreat to Taipei despite its claims. It went to "Nationalist China" or "Free China", and eventually "Taiwan". Also, the Republic of China is only recognized by states as "China" due to the One China Policy of the People's Republic of China, which has only crippled foreign relations with the state despite it now carrying a completely different identity. What also comes to attention is the fact of current politics within the state in regards to amending old laws and the constitution. The Constitution of the Republic of China is amended when 75% of the Legislative Yuan approves, an accomplishment that occurs perhaps once in a blue moon due to the deep divide between the only two major parties in the state (KMT and DPP); the two sides can't and will not agree on many things in politics, resulting in very little progress being made overall throughout government (such as when DPP held office under President Chen, but the KMT held control of the Legislative Yuan). However, the Republic of China has abolished many components of its government since 1949. The National Assembly became defunct in 2005, the provincial governments of the state have been streamlined and/or eliminated into divisions of the Executive Yuan, and overall government bodies have been scaled down to accommodate for the smaller state and identity (Legislative Yuan down-scaled to 113 from 225). The state is still carrying on as the Republic of China. However, it is not the same "Republic of China" in terms of government control, style, and depth. It definitely didn't become "Taiwanese" after 1949. However, the Republic of China article also must reflect on its current identity, which happens to be Taiwan. If this proposal is agreed upon, discussion on the history of the state can be found in detail under History of the Republic of China, serving as the contrast to History of Taiwan which will discuss the history of the territory the ROC now possesses to match up with every other country's article on Misplaced Pages. It is a complicated issue because of the Republic of China's unique situation, I realize that, but changes must be made to keep this article consistent with everything else. We obviously could take the long route and create more split ends for the Republic of China / Taiwan, but that would end up complicating the matters even further. That is why I made this kind of proposal: Get the Republic of China article to become "Taiwan" to match consistency with other articles, avoiding as much hassle as possible while still being able to retain information accurately. Kirby173 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The official name of the country is still Republic of China, the country is still presenting itself as China or Republic of China, and it is still having effective control over some non-Taiwanese landmasses. We will unavoidably be siding with some non-neutral points of view and creating confusions with topics such as Taiwanese independence, the Four Stage Theory, and so on and so forth. The only way out is to stick with the current official name until that name changed, or, at least, its territorial extent is reduced to Taiwan. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point of this proposal. We are not in any way advocating Taiwan independence, or claiming the lack of existence of the "Republic of China"'s claims on the Chinese mainland. We are simply pointing out that the common name for the state, as referred to by various, high-level publications and media forms, is Taiwan. The fact that the People's Republic of China article was renamed to the common name of "China" presented a situation where there was no choice but to rename the Republic of China over to Taiwan. The maintain consistency under the article names. It's against all logic to have "China" and "Republic of China". It must be one option or the other. The current Republic of China article is not getting changed or modified to promote Taiwanese independence. It will maintain the same structure, the same text, as its current state. However, because we must maintain consistency with the China article, we are invoking to rename this article to Taiwan, and to have its history section match its current territorial outline. The Republic of China is not disappearing from Misplaced Pages. The Government of the Republic of China and History of the Republic of China articles, which will discuss the state's government and history in extensive detail, are not going anywhere. There are, and will still be, multiple links and references to said articles, and others in relation to the Republic of China. As a matter of fact, we don't even have plans to alternate the opening sentence of the article. The Republic of China is the official state here, it's just that its common name is Taiwan, which we must reflect given the situation at hand. Kirby173 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) That's the name advocated by Taiwanese independence supporters. By using such a name as the title for the ROC article we'll make it a lot more difficult to explain the fact that the pro-independence parties aren't considering the non-Taiwanese part of the ROC to be part of their proposed state. It's going to be difficult too to explain the basis of their argument for independence - that Japanese relinquished Taiwan (and the Pescadores) yet specified no recepient - an argument that doesn't apply at all to the non-Taiwanese part of the ROC. After all Taiwan is merely a pars pro toto, just that it's somehow more common than Holland is to the Netherlands, Britain and England is to the UK, or America is to the US. It's neither accurate nor neutral.

If the reason behind your move was because of the relocation of the PRC article to the China namespace four months, the proper way forward is to go and discuss at Talk:China to undo the relocation (either by appealing the relocation or by proposing a counter request). 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

An alternative proposal would be redirecting Taiwan to this article, and moving the existing article on the island of Taiwan to Taiwan (island). The following hatnote should be added to this article - "Taiwan redirects here. For the largest island in the modern Republic of China, see Taiwan (island). For other meaning, see Taiwan (disambiguation).". No content would have to be modified, except for scrapping the Republic of China (1912-1949) fork. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't do anything to deal with the common name policy. It just sweeps the matter under the carpet because it's "easier" for certain users. John Smith's (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It accomodates the common contemporary usage without immediately equating the two terms, and therefore gets around neutrality violations. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The renaming of "People's Republic of China" to "China" has already violated the equality and neutrality of the articles, so unless there is a change over on the other end there, this proposal is simply balancing the equation once again.Kirby173 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

See above. We don't rely on a fait accompli somewhere else to accept something unsatisfactory here. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• As a counterexample to certain claims here about how the ROC name is archaic and no longer used, this is President Ma Ying-jeou's campaign slogan for the presidential election to be held next week: Our Taiwan, our home; our Republic of China, our country.
• As you can see, the current President of the country considers the country name to be ROC, and Taiwan to be the "homeland" but not the name of the country. What's more, the slogan specifically pointed out the important differences between the two names, which shows you how controversial a change from ROC to Taiwan would be among many people in the country. Given this, it is incredible that some of the supporters do not see a problem with choosing the name Taiwan over ROC. I understand that the supporters' argument is mainly based on COMMONNAME; but I'm also trying to make you understand why there's a POV issue here. JimSukwutput 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is lots of controversy on Misplaced Pages. For example, referring to the Armenian genocide upsets a massive number of Turks. But not referring to it as such would upset Armenians. Sometimes Misplaced Pages has to effectively take a side when it comes to article titles. Otherwise we would frequently have incongruous essay-type titles that tried to summarise the position of the article in a single sentence. The fact is that the views of Ma and people like him are a minority even in Taiwan. John Smith's (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have PRC supporters complaining about PRC getting snubbed having to "share" China with the ROC. Eventually they too will complain about a Republic of China article still existing and a People's Republic of China being just a link. So to avoid double standards, it is good to move Taiwan up. And ROC contents down to Republic of China (1912-1949). Remember the Wiki community was very open to both ROC and PRC being a part of China. Is the PRC supporters that want complete domination. Benjwong (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"The fact is that the views of Ma and people like him are a minority even in Taiwan" - so I wonder how this bloke, who belongs in the minority, got elected. Were his electors the minority in Taiwan as well? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think John Smith was referring to the comment of "Our Taiwan, our home; our Republic of China, our country." Very few people see it as all four of those things. Maybe they see two. Benjwong (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Come on, are you kidding me? If very few people believed in those things, he wouldn't have made it his campaign slogan. Campaign slogans are designed to appeal to the masses. JimSukwutput 14:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There will be contention and POV either way. The point of COMMONNAME is that articles can be names without regard to whether it will show this or that POV, but on reasons not based on the opinions of editors. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

But in my understanding, it's not intended to be used as a blunt instrument in blatantly problematic cases such as Ireland or Taiwan. Surely it's also not meant to be used for proactive POV pushing or the creation of false dichotomies. Wendin (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is used for Ireland. Also, it's hard to see how it can be used for POV pushing, as a commonname is a commonname. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Commonname one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages? (And to the extent that it is a more important pillar than NPOV?) 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a pillar of wikipedia, but an important part of NPOV. Note in WP:NPOV "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We are already highlighting 'Taiwan' as the common name of the contemporary ROC in the lead paragraph of this article and extensively in other articles. There's no problem for readers to identify and comprehend that the ROC is the Taiwan that they know of. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And that can easily apply vice versa, not much of an argument. The article would still call Taiwan the ROC, so there's no problem for readers to comprehend that the long name of Taiwan is the Republic of China. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Taiwan and the Republc of China aren't ≡ or ≅. 'Taiwan' is only a common name of the contemporary ROC, and that there's no clear or objective cut-off day from which onwards the ROC became Taiwanese and no longer Chinese. Further, Taiwan does not cover the entirety of the contemporary ROC. In other words, 'Taiwan' is only common name for part of the history of the ROC, and 'Taiwan' refers only to part of the geographical extent of the modern ROC. If the subject matter of this article is the ROC, it should be titled 'Republic of China' though it's perfectly okay and necessary to prominently highlight its common name 'Taiwan'. But if this article is merely about Taiwan and is titled as such, the non-Taiwan materials in this article would have to be removed. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not how the English language works. The modern state, which is the topic of this article, is known as Taiwan. This Taiwan covers the entire ROC, the island and others. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that Misplaced Pages isn't only about the modern state. The current setup is that this particular article is about the ROC from its founding in 1912, its predecessors, and the background to its founding. This state didn't become Taiwan at least until 1972, and in a more concrete sense, 1996. But even after 1996 its geographical extent isn't just Taiwan. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think that slogan is to appeal to people who are just less hard-lined about independence activities. In Taiwan you have two choices: "Go independent" (green) or "talk less about independence" (blue). Benjwong (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The Taiwan political spectrum is more detailed than that, and it goes something like - Deep Green: Independence; Shallow Green: PRC skeptic; Shallow Blue: Maintain the status quo; Deep Blue: Pro-reunification; Extreme Blue (and yes, these people do exist, they participate in online communities everywhere, and are very loud and vocal in their nationalism. If you've ever been to discussion boards like Komica, Krautchan /int/ or 4chan /int/, you'd know what I mean.): LOLSENDMILITARYTORETAKEMAINLANDIN10YEARS.THESOUTHSHALLRISEAGAIN. Not all Pan-Blue supporters are pro-reunification, however much of them are supportive of the ROC state. Though it would be true to a point to say that the slogan appeals to Pan-Blue sympathizers, it may be quite a generalization, as not all Pan-Blues can be put in the one pot, just like not all Pan-Greens can be generalized as one "characteristic voter" either. Some less-extreme Pan-Greens do recognize the legitimacy of the ROC. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We are generalizing, because that is how most spectrums are presented. HK politics is the about the same with mild and aggressive pro-beijing and pro-democracy camp parties. It is not always clean cut. Benjwong (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing "blatantly problematic such as Ireland...". There is Luxembourg and Belgium's Luxembourg; Mongolia and China's Mongolia; Virginia and West Virginia; various Congos; various Guineas; The "Ireland" case is simple, simple - the reason it causes problems on WP is that there are a lot of Brit editors here (not many Belgian Luxembourgers etc). 86.42.24.212 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What about Georgia? 42.3.2.237 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledging Important Factors while Attempting to Simplify Matters (Part II)

Guys, this is a massive tangent. We do not name articles according to political speeches or slogans. Whether the ROC is legitimate or not is not for Misplaced Pages to decide. CommonName is what we need to follow. And as someone said, it isn't POV to use a common name. John Smith's (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyways the goal really is to start off with the changes user kirby pointed out. And go from there. Are people ok with these changes? Benjwong (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Republic of China ---rename and move---> Taiwan
• Taiwan#History ---cut and paste---> Republic of China#History (current article) / Taiwan#History (new article)
• Republic of China#History ---contents moved to---> Government of the Republic of China#History, History of the Republic of China, (Republic of China (1912-1949))
• Taiwan ---moved to---> Taiwan (island)

• • "it isn't POV to use a common name" - no, WP:COMMONNAME explicitly states that neutrality is a concern with article names, and that common names are sometimes replaced with the second-most common names if neutrality and clarity are important concerns. You cannot just sweep the entire issue under the rug by making up policies. JimSukwutput 06:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I broadly support those changes (and would add that a lot of in-text references to ROC in other articles should change to Taiwan as well). They would appear to reflect common usage, in that it is incredibly rare to see Taiwan referred to as "the Republic of China" in media, official or academic sources in 2012 except in specific contexts. As for WP's common name policy, the key quote is surely as follows: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms" (which is also the standard held to for most other country articles). Reliance on "When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" fails on two counts - 1) ROC is really not very common at all (even if it might be the second-most common); 2) no-one has really ever spelled out what the specific "problem" with preferring "Taiwan" is anyway, in terms of supposed lack of neutrality or anything else. Even if there is such a problem, WP:POVTITLE - which anyway primarily refers to the use of explicitly non-neutral terms such as "massacre" or "murder" - tells us that "the prevalence of the name ... generally overrides concern that Misplaced Pages might appear as endorsing one side of an issue"; the relevant section of WP:NPOV itself says "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased". N-HH talk/edits 15:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

With in-text references differ so much from the title, it's going to make readers seriously confused. There are simply too many occassions that we gotta differentiate (a) Taiwan as a euphenism for the contemporary ROC, which is still carrying on the constitution, the laws, the institutions, the state organs, etc., of the pre-1945/49 ROC, and (b) Taiwan as the former Japanese possession that had gone through decades of a different path of history and is now having a high-profile movement towards independence. The best way to differentiate these two concepts is to have one article titled 'Republic of China', with the word 'Taiwan' bolded in its lead paragraph, and another article title 'Taiwan (island)'. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@Benjwong - I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. We don't have to move content around. That's unneccessary. All we need to do is to move the article on the island to Taiwan (island), and turn the Taiwan namespace into a redirect or a disambiguation page. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When the move was made from PRC -> China. While I strongly disagree with it, I at least have the intention to stick around and help make whatever changes. When ROC is permanently referred to as Taiwan (almost like an independent state), I hope you too will stick around and help make whatever changes necessary. The part about the island is like the 4th item on the list of priority. Please see above. Benjwong (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

While we refer to the contemporary Republic of China with the euphemism 'Taiwan', we don't say 'Taiwan hasn't dropped the claim over the Chinese mainland'. Calling the ROC 'Taiwan' wouldn't be more correct or accurate than calling the Netherlands Holland. We don't create another trouble just because of the first trouble that we've created. We fix the first trouble. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There should be no change - the ROC article should remain at the "Republic of China". 86.42.24.212 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not ignore facts

• Republic of China = Taiwan + other minor islands (+ mainland China and even HK & MO)
• People's Republic of China = Mainland China + Hong Kong + Macau + other minor islands (+ Taiwan)

Kinmen and Matsu belong to the Republic of China, but they are not in Taiwan; in addition, they belong to Fujian Province, Republic of China. Is Fujian equal to Taiwan? -- Meow 19:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, alternatively, the facts are as follows -

• The Republic of China - commnly known, including by much of its own media and official sources, as Taiwan - controls the island of Taiwan and other minor islands. It claims (to an increasingly diminishing extent and to an increasingly diminishing audience) to also be the legitimate authority in mainland China and even Hong Kong and Macau.
• The People's Republic of China - commonly known throughout the English-speaking world as China - controls what is often referred to as Mainland China, as well as also Hong Kong and Macau as special administrative regions. It claims the territory currently ruled by the ROC as part of China proper.

Furthermore, the other undeniable fact is that 95% of English-language references to the phrases "Taiwan" and "China" in 2012 use them as per the bolded terms above. Country profiles from the CIA to the BBC file the main details of these countries under those short-form terms, not the full-length official titles; Misplaced Pages files every other country profile (including that country's history) under short-form terms, unless there is significant ambiguity or dual meaning. An article title or one-word description is just that, not necessarily a statement of deep fundamental interpretation. The complexities at the margins and the claims and counterclaims on sovereignty and territory can, should be and are covered in article text. N-HH talk/edits 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No question that this article should be moved to Taiwan, but the leading sentence must include the long form name "ROC" as well as a reference that Taiwan is currently not a member of the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm disagreeing, but, why does it matter for it to say that it is not a member of the UN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.140 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume that in any history it would mention being replaced in the UN by the PRC, as that was a major diplomatic milestone. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the other states with limited recognition have that in the 1st line of their articles, this article doesn't need it either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@N-HH - The CIA, e.g., is obliged to follow the official position of the US. And the position of the US is bounded by the Taiwan Relations Act. According to the Taiwan Relatons Act, Taiwan covers only the main island (including the islets around it, of course) and the Pescadores. Kinmen and the Matsu Islands aren't, as defined by that act, included as part of 'Taiwan'. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The facts you point out are obviously the blatant truth in reality, and were accurately addressed under the old format of the China articles with "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China". However, it is not what is reflected based on the English speaking community of today, as well as the current circumstances of the articles as well. We do realize that the Republic of China controls Kinmen and Matsu, it has never been an over-sight in this debate. The point arisen however is that the state is now commonly known as Taiwan due to its geographical composition and political status. The proposals don't seek to change any proper information in regards to administrative divisions. Even so, looking at the government situation of the Republic of China as well, it only controls 1 full province of its original composition under its Constitution, and two off-shore counties of a second (Fujian). The fact of this has led to the provincial governments becoming very much defunct in many, if not all, political and administrative affairs within the state. In its current situation, the provinces of the Republic of China no longer account for much power. Kirby173 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• • What evidence is there that the state is commonly known as Taiwan? When I see a reference to Taiwan it is more often than not a reference to its economy, its people, its politics; not the political and legal entity. In contrast, when I see a political reference, it is more often known as Republic of China (Taiwan) or Chinese Taipei (for example, some rankings of political freedom use this, and a lot of encyclopaedias - like Misplaced Pages - use ROC for the state's name). It is mentioned that some agencies like the CIA refer to the state as Taiwan, but of course they are obliged to do so under U.S. law, since the U.S. does not formally recognize the ROC as an alternative Chinese state. It is not really that clear-cut that Taiwan is the common name for the government, which is part of the move proposal. Has there been any formal findings on this issue on Misplaced Pages? JimSukwutput 06:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This confusion over terms such as state and government has slightly bedevilled the China/PRC issue, in that the move to China caused complaints from people that Misplaced Pages was favouring the communist regime somehow by allotting it the name China (rather than simply acknowledging standard, real-world usage and terminology). Again, by talking about Taiwan as the state, we mean the geopolitical nation-state, country or whatever (being conscious of its slightly ambiguous status in that regard), not the political system or regime or specific government - ie "yesterday Taiwan announced", "during a trip to Taiwan, Hillary Clinton said". The list of those bodies and publications that use the Taiwan/China terminology in this way goes way beyond the CIA. You will find examples of use dominant in text in virtually every English-language book, newspaper that you pick up (with exceptions, but not many); most profiles or descriptions of the country use Taiwan as the lead name (see BBC, Britannica, FCO, all cited & linked elsewhere); and you will find plenty of explicit assertions that Taiwan is the common name - and probably none that assert that ROC is the common name. If this page did move, we would still presumably have "Government of .." pages for both China and Taiwan, which possibly ought to keep the more formal, official names in the article title. N-HH talk/edits 13:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, Jim, to what is GIO Minister Philip Yang referring to when he says " to demonstrate Taiwan's active role in the promotion of economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region over the past two decades", or "Taiwan has proposed many important initiatives to the APEC membership, leading to some impressive achievements"? Is he referring to the island of Taiwan and intentionally excluding other ROC territories, or is he in fact referring to the political entity of which he is a representative as Taiwan? What about the title and first line of the article, "Taiwan celebrates 20th year of APEC membership: The ROC government is celebrating the country's 20 years in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum"? This seems to rather clearly indicate that the GIO regards Taiwan as a name for the country, not just a geographic location or political subdivision. This link is just one example, the GIO website's press releases are littered with ROC=Taiwan equations. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that it's referring to the economy. As a political entity, the ROC claims but does not govern most of its territories, which means it will be incorrect (to them) to say things such as "ROC is interested in joining the Trans-Pacific partnership as a liberal economy". So they use Taiwan in place of that. But notice that in the article, when it's explicitly referring to the political entity (e.g. "ROC's government"), they use the term ROC. It is clear from this that these two terms are not perfectly interchangeable, which further proves my point. JimSukwutput 13:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if anything that all seems to back up the points I made in the preceding post - "Taiwan" is the way the entity itself is commonly referred to, although in the context of referring to the government specifically, "Government of the Republic of China"/"ROC government" is used. So that's the way our articles should be titled: we have the latter "government" article under that title, we now need to just switch the former article, about the state/country/whatever to "Taiwan". Easy, clear, standard throughout the English-speaking world and follows the usage even employed by Taiwan itself - not that the last would necessarily trump third party terminology and sources if there were a clash; but if even they use it as well, that surely says something? N-HH talk/edits 15:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, the fact that they reserved the term ROC for the political entity and Taiwan for non-political uses should indicate to you that these two terms are not interchangeable. I'm not sure how you managed to arrive at a different conclusion from that article. JimSukwutput 18:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're both slightly relying on our own guesswork and subjective interpretation here (and this example is not of course definitive by itself either way), but I dispute that "fact" as asserted and any such definitive claims about the lack of interchangability. I also find it hard to accept an assertion that this sentence for example - "Taiwan has proposed many important initiatives to the APEC membership" - represents "non-political" use of the phrase Taiwan. It's using Taiwan as a terms for the geopolitical entity "Taiwan" in exactly the same sense that a French minister might say "France is making a new proposal to the EU". N-HH talk/edits 18:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that's my reading as well. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, I think if the pan Green camp wins, Taiwan should join TPP as Taiwan, not Chinese Taipei or even ROC. Same with the next olympics. Benjwong (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't wanna throw in politics here but, do you think that sort of thing will be possible when the commies are using their RMB to block it? Don't just say we will "strongly resist and condemn Beijing's actions". 8 years of corrupt DPP rule, with all the ruckus about "joining the UN under the name Taiwan", changing state-owned enterprises' names etc. only resulted in the erosion of Taiwan's international position and losing more diplomatic allies to the mainland. Will the Green-camp be happy only after all of our remaining 23 diplomatic allies cut relations with us and join the commies' "United Front"? Please do not turn the clock back and damage Taiwan further already. Raiolu (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan have an interest in "turning its back on the mainland, and run towards the world". Are you saying the world has nothing more than 23 diplomatic allies for Taiwan, and the rest are greedy RMB-bribable countries? I didn't know it was that bad. Benjwong (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That is empty talk by the DPP. Pro-Green media tend to paint a beautiful picture of things they advocate, and when that fails, they start going, "Oh...it's not our fault", and starts "taichi-ing" the blame to someone else. Costa Rica was a staunch ally of the ROC for 60 years, but still it waved goodbye to the ROC in 2007 thanks to the DPP. Look at how many diplomatic allies the ROC has lost during the DPP's 8 years in power, while not a single one got cold feet, kissed RMB notes filled with Chairman Mao's face and jumped ship when the policy of "flexible diplomacy" and a "diplomatic truce" came into effect after Ma Ying-jeou was inaugurated. Oh by the way, there's also talk of Saint Lucia bidding us farewell too. If that happens after the election, have fun crying over spilt milk and revel in finger-pointing games if 空心Tsai is elected. Raiolu (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, can we have a bit less on Taiwanese politics? WP is not a soapbox or a forum after all, and there's enough on-topic verbosity without going off on a tangent as well .. N-HH talk/edits 16:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole proposal should be scrapped as a train wreck. Wendin (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it should be pursued as the only sensible way to finally bring Misplaced Pages into line with the rest of the world and how it uses the word "Taiwan" in 99% of cases and, coming at it from the other side, what 99% of references to "Taiwan" mean. Who, today, describes this entity as "the Republic of China"? Even Taiwan doesn't describe itself under that name half the time. It's only a potential train wreck because a few people keep arguing in favour of a veto on any move and keep digging for more and more obscure and technical arguments as to why, supposedly, it would be "wrong". N-HH talk/edits 17:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

N-HH is correct. There's no train wreck at all. But some people are trying to endlessly debate the issue, possibly in the hope that everyone else will get bored and go elsewhere. John Smith's (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It was declared at one point that "This is not a move. No article will be renamed, nor is it expected there will be a large movement of content." Yet all of the debate seems to be focused on the move question. The train wreck comment was about that lack of focus. I'm in the minority, I'd just like some clarity. Wendin (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Last I heard, Jpech95 had been working on a sandbox version of the various articles for demonstration. What's the status on this? I think a good demonstration would make an effective centrepiece for discussion on actual change. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the tag about the proposed move was taken off. Was that intentional? Wendin (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. The person who started this thread removed the tag. Sorry, I wasn't aware that was the case. Wendin (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

People should respect the law and the reality: the "ROC" should remain at the "Republic of China" page. That is the only objective way. 86.42.24.212 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What do English language sources do? (Please contribute to the list)

I've seen quite a lot of English-language news coverage lately, on the Taiwanese election, and very few sources seem to use the term "Republic of China". I don't know whether this is just selective hearing or not, so here is a short list of sources, organized by how they talk about the recent election. Notice that if they are talking about the election, then we can logically conclude that they are not talking about the island, when they use the term "Taiwan".

I searched the first sources that came to mind, and linked the first article I saw in each case. Please feel free to add more sources, or modify this list. Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources which use the term "Taiwan", with no mention of "Republic of China"

• BBC News
• Economist
• Guardian
• Sydney Morning Herald
• Washington Post
• Reuters
• Financial Times
• Globe and Mail
• The Hindu
• Christian Science Monitor
• BusinessWeek
• Taipei Times

Primarily uses the term "Taiwan", but mentions the term "Republic of China"

• New York Times (apparently out of political considerations: see Question #9)
• CNN
• The China Post (uses Taiwan in most contexts, but uses "Republic of China Air Force" and "president of the Republic of China" in reference to titles and institutions)
• Straits Times
• The Telegraph

• Encyclopædia Britannica (uses Taiwan in most contexts, but uses "government of the Republic of China" and "ROC government" and "president of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" in text of articles)
• Taiwan: A Political History (2003) (uses ROC in titles such as "first ROC governor of Taiwan")
• Re-orienting Australia-China relations: 1972 to the present (2004) (uses "Republic of China on Taiwan" interchangeably with Taiwan)

Primarily uses the term "Republic of China"

• Security for the Pacific century: national strategy in a multilateral setting (2002) (uses ROC in mostly political context and Taiwan in non-political context)
• Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, Vol. 19, p. 233 (2010)

Discussion

It seems to me the English-speaking world overwhelming is using the word "Taiwan" to describe this election.. without going into political or historical arguments, it seems to me that the entity which Ma Ying-jeou is president of, is primarily called "Taiwan" in English speaking sources. If others disagree, could they list their sources above? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Being from Australia and having seen that Sydney Morning Herald headline before seeing this debate, I think its headline is the most telling. It says "China welcomes second term for Taiwan's leader". It's 100% clear what they mean by China, and it's not the Republc of... HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that will be the case everywhere. I've personally never disputed Taiwan being the common name. My point was that neutral point of view trumps common name in a problematic case like this. If the majority feels differently, so be it, but I'd just like to be clear. Wendin (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

But what's non-neutral about that Sydney Morning Herald headline? HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This exercise completely misses the point of the dispute. No one can deny here that "Taiwan" is the conventional name of the "Republic of China." However, this is only the case in the present tense, with numerous mentions of Taiwan having nothing to do with the Republic of China and numerous mentions of the Republic of China having nothing to do with Taiwan. As a result, there are, and will be, separate articles for both Taiwan and the Republic of China. The focus of the discussion should be on the makeup of each article to reflect the subtle difference between the two. Establishing that Taiwan is the conventional name of the Republic of China in the present tense won't solve this dispute as making Republic of China redirect to Taiwan would be grossly inaccurate and misleading.--Jiang (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose this will be a useful list to have at any rate, just so we can point to it. What "Republic of China" should redirect to is something that would be determined by looking at what "Republic of China" refers to in English literature. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The present tense is now, and what matters. It is not grossly inaccurate and misleading to refer to something as it is currently used and introduce other terms (historical, official, alternative) in the text, and use those other terms where appropriate. We cannot wholesale replace usage of RoC with Taiwan, but we also can not force RoC where it is no longer used. Nitpicking about where Taiwan isn't a replacement for RoC is a red herring. Article text can use the most context appropriate term. What is misleading are the current article titles as they correspond to real world usage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The edtors nsisting on Republic of Chna here have led to a massve debate at Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates with a lot of editors there insisting that policy demands RoC on every occason, not just relevant hstorcal usages. It's caused a really look for Misplaced Pages. It's the equvalent of having artcles titled Ceylon, Peking and Calcutta. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, there's a difference between arguing for ROC and ROC(T). Users there were in support of ROC(T), which isn't really that contraversial as you're claiming it to be. WP:NC-TW allows (Taiwan) to be added after Republic of China in certain cases, like the case we're dealing with at ITN. Plus, your remark regarding Peking isn't really that supportive of your point, since we have hardline editors insisting that we use terms such as Szechuan cuisine and Peking duck. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

To me, there's still a huge difference. The name China simply should not appear as part of the current common name. Look at that SMH headline again. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Peking perfectly supports HiLo's point. The fact the duck retains an anachronistic name is an interesting oddity, and has no bearing as to what Peking is now called. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is slightly different from the Ceylon, Peking etc examples, in that those were straight name usage changes, without the political overlay - eg in that the ROC is purportedly a theoretical and historical entity above and over the modern thing known as "Taiwan". But that's all pretty academic stuff and not relevant to the basic naming point. This article needs to be named per contemporary, common terminology - just as we do for "Beijing" and "Peking Duck". And that WP:NC-TW guideline - which deprecates the use of Taiwan at all other than to refer specifically to the island - needs drastic surgery. I have no idea how it was ever agreed, unless, as so often here, discussions were captured by a small clique operating with their own agendas rather than editors with a broader interest looking at it dispassionately and objectively. N-HH talk/edits 14:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we work on changing that bad policy now? HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

People should respect the law and the reality: the "ROC" should remain at the "Republic of China" page. That is the only objective way. 86.42.24.212 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's anything but objective. It's confusing, and politically manipulative with the goal of maintaining a fight from 60 years ago. It belongs in history books, not here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Supporting Taiwan as a sovereign state, a concept of Taiwanese independence, doesn't belong here.71.184.217.18 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The naming issue has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting Taiwanese independence, or indeed with making some kind of assertion as to whether the place is already de facto independent or not (I for one don't care either way). People dragging politics into this is part of what is making this relatively simple issue so complicated. People see politics in any proposed move to "Taiwan" and claim "POV" when there is none - either because they genuinely lack perspective, or deliberately as a way to veto any change that, for whatever reason, they somehow see as undermining their POV on cross-strait relations. Whatever we call this thing, it's going to have some kind of implication or outrageous bias to someone's eyes - the only thing we need to actually worry about is what the rest of the world usually calls this place/country and - guess what - follow that. N-HH talk/edits 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that in most of the sources, the press follows the governments which use Taiwan to avoid having problem with Beijing. It isn't a convention for the press to decode the nomenclatures of the governments on matters around China. But Misplaced Pages articles aren't pieces of news stories. They are not only about ongoing current events. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The press follows what the public understands. In my country they don't suck up to governments, I can assure you. I learnt about the recent election from a local quality newspaper which used the headline "China welcomes second term for Taiwan's leader". That event was discussed in Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates. By your logic, that being a current event, the article should have followed the approach of the media and just used the name Taiwan. Right? HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the scope of this source gathering exercise? We've only listed news articles so far, but this is Misplaced Pages and not Wikinews, so what is appropriate for news articles may not be as appropriate for encylopedia articles. I could list government publications and websites, vanity webpages, books, and the like - but can we agree on what fits and what doesn't?--Jiang (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my post immediately above? (I do get the distinct impression that some here who have a different perspective choose to ignore posts they don't like. Very poor form.) The immediate need is to clarify that for current events (like reporting the recent election in "In The News") the only sane thing to do is to use the word Taiwan. Nobody is arguing that all the historical articles need to change. Just highlight somewhere in the article that the current common name of the country is Taiwan. There are enough sources above to justify that. Thousands more could probably be found if some here continue to be so bloody stubborn. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Nobody is arguing that all the historical articles need to change. Just highlight somewhere in the article that the current common name of the country is Taiwan." This article, as at this moment, is already highlighting the word Taiwan in its first line. 42.3.2.237 (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, speaking in the abstract doesn't prevent you from assuming bad faith. I haven't gotten the sense, until your post now, that this section has to exclusively deal with current events. That's maybe what brought you here, but no insults please.

In news articles you will see oversimplified, misleading, and derogatory terms such as "China-friendly Kuomintang" or "pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party" as well as crude characterizations such as "China regards Taiwan as a renegade province" being bandied about. Of course, any one with a deep understanding of the situation (such as academics specializing in political science) will agree that such characterizations are silly, so you will not see such phrases in books and journal articles. My point being that if this exercise is to have any bearing beyond news articles (which we do not write here), then it will be far more useful to look beyond news articles. If it is simply to establish Taiwan as the common name, I don't see what's the dispute. The Hong Kong crowd keep making the same arguments - I don't see how this will persuade them. --Jiang (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The media frequently reflects the language used by the English speaking world. Government websites still have a usefulness though.

UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office John Smith's (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jiang - "China-friendly Kuomintang" is absolutely appropriate. No three words could better convey the general picture. This is after alll the "CHINESE Nationalist Party" dedicated to the revitalisation of China... Taiwan independence is anathema to the KMT. As for the DPP...."pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party" sums up their position as well as any five words could possibly do. Independence is after all, their central tenet. As for "China regards Taiwan as a renegade province" being "crude". It gets to the nub of the PRC position........After all, it is referred to as "Taiwan Province of China" by the UN and China would certainly not support any change to that....PRC officials regularly reprimand NGOs who refer to Taiwan as anything other than "Taiwan Province of China", its official UN name. Can you Jiang suggest EQUALLY SHORT but more appropriate tags? I'd be interested in your suggestions. Genuinely - they might be interesting. 86.41.15.41 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

NC-TW straw poll

A straw poll has been opened on the question of whether WP:NC-TW represents current consensus and so should remain a current guideline. Opine at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#NC-TW straw poll. Shrigley (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Much of that rule is one sided and talks only of the Republic of China. What of the People's Republic of China? If we have to say "ROC", shouldn't we also say "PRC"? To say that "Taiwan" has to be "ROC" and "PRC" need only be "China" would represent the politically biased view of the Communist Party of China. So, we should adhere to the first sentence of that rule: "Text should treat the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China." If we are to treat the ROC equally along with the PRC, then the 2 articles have to be called "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China", or "Taiwan" and "China". Anything less would violate the first sentence of that rule.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What for? 42.3.2.237 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's where we used to be. PRC then moved to China; some of us are now trying to take the logical step to follow that and move ROC to Taiwan to finally bring Misplaced Pages into line the rest of the world in terms of how the terms are commonly used in 2012 for non-specialised references, rather than having it off in its own clique-directed obscurantist fantasy island. N-HH talk/edits 12:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Commonly known as Taiwan

The state as a whole is referred to as Taiwan. This includes its land, its economy, its people (the Taiwanese), and its government. News reports around the world discussed the reelection of the President of Taiwan. Trying to equate "Taiwan" with a very specific geopolitical term is ridiculous and flies in the face of English usage. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The most important word in that post is the sixth one. It makes it 100% true. Can editors please refrain from mentioning history here? HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a dialogue in the edit history:

• (虞海)“The claimed area (though not active claim) of ROC is not commonly known as Taiwan”
• (Chipmunkdavis)“The whole claimed area is not commonly known as much at all. The country is known as Taiwan. You'd need significant evidence to refute that”
• (虞海)“the significant evidence is: Second Sino-Japanese War IS NOT, and WILL NEVER BE commonly known as Taiwan-Japanese War.”
• (Chipmunkdavis)“History does not determine contemporary usage”
• I want to reply this here: Second Sino-Japanese War IS the contemporary name of the war. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Something irrelevant to the contemporary name of the state. Like Peking Duck and Beijing I suppose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You told me “does not determine contemporary usage” and I gave you the contemporary usage. And now you told me its “contemporary name” is irrelevant?!?! 你这是在涮我 You're tricking me! ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

我不是, that's not very good faith. The contemporary name of the war is irrelevant to the contemporary name of the state. 懂吗? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, then would you say: “Second Sino-Japanese War is a war between Taiwan (officially the Republic of China) and the Empire of Japan” (Sorry for the misunderstanding)? Don't forget that ROC brfore 1945 and ROC after 1945 is one single entity. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Taiwan articles
• Top-importance Taiwan articles
• WikiProject Taiwan articles
• GA-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• GA-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• GA-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2011)
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists