Talk:Taiwan/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Restructuring of the lead

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

An administrator already answered you... it's done properly per Wikipedia guidelines. And no reason to start a new section about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), you might have misunderstood me, as this discussion is unrelated to the above edit request, but rather to the above RfC. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I did since you said "above" with no mention of the RfC. I put it back as a topic. The RfC has nothing to do with structure, just whether we switch the word "state" with the word "country." Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), yes but the discussion did mention this, and I feel like this is an issue to be dealt with here as well. Nevertheless I'm a bit busy with other things, plus my semi-wikibreak, so I'd come here much less often. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe, that when the Talk:Taiwan#RfC:_Taiwan,_"country"_or_"state" RfC above is closed as "no consensus", which I believe it must because the question is too simple, it will then be appropriate to discuss a restructure of the lede. As above, I believe that the state status dispute belongs in the lede sentence, and that most of the fourth lede paragraph belongs in the article body. The state status dispute is way too important to not mention immediately, and way too complicated to attempt a balanced summary of details in the article lede. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• While I agree with "state"and the reasoning behind it, it's almost a snowball for "country." I'm not sure about changing the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Fyunck(click), yes, I must be been blind to the support for "country". I support it. It will be good for readability. It is, however, weak. I support "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country, and disputed state, in East Asia." I am not sure about the choice between "disputed" and "de facto", but I like "disputed" because it is a better pointer to the details below that can repeat the word "disputed". The will not be treatment in the body about "de facto". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Disputed state" is not a term I've seen used much outside of Wikipedia, and saying "country, and disputed state" is somewhat redundant and flows poorly. A better option would be having the subsequent sentences provide basic detail of the situation. For example, moving the current second and third sentence of the final paragraph to this position. Alternatively, move the entire fourth paragraph to become part of the first paragraph, and have geography/demography in other paragraphs. CMD (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Another way of mentioning the issue early would be to take the second half of the last sentence of the opening paragraph and make it the second sentence: "It is the most populous state/country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)." This would also help establish significance. Kanguole 07:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I like this "It is the most populous state/country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations" idea. It succinctly drives the point home, demonstrates significance, while also not assuming that the reader has prior knowledge of limited recognition states or disputed territories. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this above statement "country" can be used over "state" as it specifically states "not a member of the United Nations", thus being much more accurate than just "Taiwan is a country". Supporting the sentence It is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations., as long as it is cited. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The sentence works fine with either country or state. Presumably it would follow the RfC close. As for sourcing, that sort of sentence should be made up of information that can be sourced in the body. You make a point though that it doesn't seem to be at the moment. CMD (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is any semblance of consistency to be established, the description should most certainly include Country. Reference wiki pages Singapore, Fiji, Cuba, Dominican Republic. Propose the following edit: "is a sovereign country consisting of a group of islands in East Asia. WikiSubjEditor (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSubjEditor (talk • contribs)

Except it is NOT a sovereign country. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I don't think you could call Taiwan a disputed state, because it does not claim to be a state, hence there is no dispute about its statehood. We don't call North and South Korea disputed states, even though they both claim sovereignty over the entire country of Korea. TFD (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: What do you mean it doesn't claim to be a state?

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

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

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

— MarkH₂₁^talk 21:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, according to the Republic of China, Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China. The People's Republic of China agrees that Taiwan is part of China but disputes whether the PRP or ROC is the legimate government. The PRP irritated the ROC by passing a law saying that Taiwan could not secede from China. The ROC responded that Taiwan had the right to self-determination, although they have not in fact declared independence. Presumably if they declared independence, the ROC government would give up its claim to China and become the government of Taiwan only. Despite the de jure position of Taiwan under the laws of both the PRP and ROC, Taiwan acts as a de facto state. De facto refers what happens in practice, while de jure refers to the what should happen according to the letter of the law. The Queen for example is the de jure chief executive of the United Kingdom and fifteen other countries. In practice however, that role is carried out by prime ministers. TFD (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, if you don't want to use "Taiwan" as the common name for the ROC, sure. Since it's been longstanding consensus that "Taiwan" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article, which is about the ROC, I was using "Taiwan" to mean the ROC as reliable sources generally do (e.g. the ones quoted above). But the point (which it seems we are all in agreement about) is that the ROC claims to be a sovereign state, and is often described as a de facto sovereign state. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"State" is a funny term, meaning different things in different places. It has conflicting meanings in the US. In idea on wording is: "The international status of Taiwan is disputed". "Status" alluding to "statehood", without implying a definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: In these contexts, "state" is used as synonyms for the precise term "sovereign state". I agree that relying on the term "state" (or "country") on its own is inherently ambiguous. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, and for a lede sentence, relying on context for meaning is poor lede writing. The lede sentence should not be incorrectly interpretable, regardless of context to be explained in detail below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020我是誰

2402:7500:54C:100B:2D77:CD74:631D:360A (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change

I propose to make this change: [1]

The official name issue is previously discussed in [2][3]. In the discussion, the proposed change was modified several times to the current version, to reach consensus with several editors. There are still some editors who disagree with the change, who provided arguments that are already addressed earlier in the discussion, which they did not read and respond to, thus preventing the forming of consensus.

For the changing the sentence about the legal claims to the mainland, the reason is provided here [4]. --Visaliaw (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The passport nationality field prints "Republic of China". The passport is one of the few English official documents. Ythlev (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above has an picture of an official document (Resident Certificate) using Republic of China(Taiwan). While the government use both names, it is not neutral to only choose one of them as the official name in the article.--Visaliaw (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The document does not say "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is the country's name. This document says "Taiwan Republic of China". Which is it? Refer to relevant laws[5]. Taiwan is definitely the name of a place, so there is nothing wrong to print it as the title of a travel document. The passport on the other hand says ROC is the nationality. Ythlev (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The English title on the resident cerificate is a translation of the Chinese title "中華民國居留證". Also the law you provided uses "Taiwan" as a translation of "我國"(literaly: our country) in the original Chinese text of the law, not "Republic of China".--Visaliaw (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

is a translation. No, it is not lol anyone who reads Chinese knows they don't mean the same thing. The English version of the law also has no official/legal status. Ythlev (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is how the government translate the name of the country on the certificate. It is not a literal translation, but official names doesn't have to be translated literally.--Visaliaw (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No, but official names have to be translated officially, which this isn't. If the ARC name is official, then the Exit & Extry Permit name is not, which makes no sense. Ythlev (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no clear definition of "translated officially". While the governments use different names on different documents, we should either include all those names as the official name in the first sentence, or avoid mention the official name issue in the first sentence and leave it to the Etymology section.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There is only one official name. People don't have more than one legal name. Businesses don't have more than one legal name. The passport is the most reliable source of it. Ythlev (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"There is only one official name. People don't have more than one legal name. Businesses don't have more than one legal name." is a logical fallacy of Hasty generalization. "The passport is the most reliable source" you are Cherrypicking.--Visaliaw (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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

As I said above, the government uses multiple names and there are sources to support those names, so we should either include all those names as the official name in the first sentence, or avoid mentioning the official name issue in the first sentence and discuss it in the Etymology section if you think it would be too long for the first sentence. I have stated many times that while the government use both names, it is not neutral to only choose one of them as the official name in the article, and you are pretending not to see it.--Visaliaw (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as written, with a suggestion for the second part below. This looks like a combination of:
  1. A partial rehash of the most recent discussion (pinging participants), wherein it seemed that there was no clear consensus either way, but that there was some opposition to using the current government's preferred English form Republic of China (Taiwan) on grounds of redundancy/awkward prose, non-universal usage, and the typical English translation of the Chinese name 中華民國. ​​​​​​​
  2. Removing the mention that there hasn't been a formal renunciation of claims to the mainland and replacing it with a mention about the claims to the mainland being disputed.

Regarding the first set of changes, the lead somehow reduces "Republic of China" to an AKA, which somewhat obscures that it was the only official name in the past, the only official name to some observers, and the dominant part of the preferred English form of the current government ("dominant" here referring to the fact that "Taiwan" is in parentheses while "Republic of China" is the first un-parenthesized part). Having a two-line "conventional_long_name" parameter in the infobox (even without parentheses), when the common name is already set to "Taiwan", seems a bit cumbersome and unnecessary.

Regarding the second set of changes, there's no need to remove the factual statement that the claims have not yet been renounced, which is what the cited source supports. One could describe the dispute over whether observers believe that the government has effectively renounced the claims and whether the government's policy supports any such claim, in a separate sentence. It would also have to be cited to new source (or at least a combination of new sources and the existing citation): the cited Chang book discusses challenges to the traditional claims up through 2012, but does not support the claim that it is disputed whether there is currently a legal claim at all. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Republic of China" remains the official name per all reliable sources. In no way does "Taiwan" fit within the conventional_long_name field. I am also unaware of the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" formulation having received any constitutional status, if it has a source would be helpful.

Regarding the claims, we should not be interpreting the constitution ourselves, or be guided by the minutiae of Taiwanese political disputes. More substantive sources would be needed. CMD (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

REPUBLIC OF CHINA
TAIWAN
PASSPORT

It is extremely dangerous to the future of my account to participate in this type of discussion. I can have an unpredictable temper and others may be seriously put off by what I might say in a given discussion. Wikipedia and Wiktionary's system are not strong enough to actually permit me to express myself. I plan to continue editing on here for the rest of my natural life (maybe many decades). One discussion on one page about one contentious subject would be enough to scrap my account at the drop of a hat. In contrast, look at the useful work I did in Taiwan, Hubei, Xinjiang and Tibet minor geography- what I have done is a genuine treasure that will benefit the world for a long time. I expect that this Taiwan/ROC labelling discussion will continue throughout that multi-decade period. Rather than focus my energies on such a contentious and small part of Wikipedia, I have to- I really have to- actively and consciously choose not to spar through the decades on one (by comparison) minor issue and just build the encyclopaedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: An astute observation that any decision or consensus reached on WP wording will be unsatisfying to most observers. Just like the actual underlying geopolitical situation. Thanks for your productive energies elsewhere! — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, recent RSes still report very clearly about the "Republic of China" being the official name without mention of "Taiwan" in parentheses or otherwise (bolding mine):

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

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

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

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

— MarkH₂₁^talk 21:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

In the mindset of the "Western international order", it would seem beyond unusual for a country to have an official name situation like this. The Western eye believes, neigh demands that a country by definition must will have one and only one official name- and perhaps some other unofficial names. But that's not necessarily the case. It is conceivably possible that some countries may have more than one permutation of their official name. Hence I would be given to the tendency to say that the alternate official English language name ought be given equal treatment on Wikipedia. But that position could be too controversial and I don't want to get ban hammered because it's hard to accept that what I'm saying could be possible. However, I am drawn to the inexorable conclusion that 'Taiwan' is a component of the official name of the state headquartered in Taipei. If there are any responses here, I will look at them a minimum of one day after they are written to defend myself from engaging in a non-productive battle. -Wherever I am at is a free speech zone-Wikipedia doesn't need to follow PRC rules- Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In general, yes, there are many scenarios where a sovereign state has had multiple official names, e.g. the Qing dynasty’s later simultaneous use of ”Qing”, “Da Qing”, and “Zhongguo” as official names. My point is that many, if not most, RSes (many happen to be Western but many, the Bangkok Post for instance, aren’t) still say that “Republic of China” is the official name (with direct implication or statement that “Taiwan” isn’t one). — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Name issues abound commonplace. The USA doesn't have a proper name, and issue that ties with American exceptionalism, and the assumption that we are probably all Americans, and failing that, that we are all intimately familiar with America. Awkwardly, it adopts the name of the continent, or several versions of abbreviations or shortenings, such as "The States". This phenomenon is remarkably similar to the city called "Istanbul", assuming the name when it was a city so large, so much larger than the next largest city in the known world, a name which is not a name, but simply "the city", as if there is only one city that could be called the city, which was true. Also the UK. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or just The United Kingdom, or Britain, or Great Britain, or England. The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is another difficult case; I prefer Trinbago. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking though, England is part of Great Britain which is part of the UK. These terms are recognized in UK law to refer to different things. Similarly both mainland China and Taiwan are part of China. The dispute is which government - the PRP or ROC - is legitimate. Conceivably the KMT could have been pushed out of China entirely and set up a government in exile somewhere else. The U.S. does have a proper name. It's origins are when it was 13 separate sovereign states in alliance. In fact there were no other sovereign states in the Americas at the time. TFD (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you’ll find that the Country of England is not defined in UK, not explicitly, only by subtraction. Is Taiwan a “country”, like England? Or more like Scotland? Are the US original 13 states sovereign states, and the later states non-sovereign states? Is the difference that a sovereign state has the right to seceded? Can Taiwan secede? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

England is defined in law. See Blackstone: "The kingdom of England, over which our municipal laws have jurisdiction, includes not, by the common law, either Wales, Scotland, or Ireland, or any other part of the king's dominions, except the territory of England only." England under common law was the territory recognized from time immemorial. He then mentions that Wales and Berwick-on-Tweed were incorporated into England by statute. When Ireland and later Scotland were merged with England to form the UK, they retained their own legal systems and established churches. So for example a court judgment in one country of the UK does not receive full faith and credit in another. England retains separate bodies, recognized by law, to licence some professionals such as lawyers and accountants.

All U.S. states are sovereign but they share sovereignty with the federation. The right of secession does not affect that. Taiwan cannot unilaterally secede under the constitution of the Republic of China. Taiwan is not comparable to the UK or U.S. because it is not a country or state, but a province. TFD (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If you mean "Taiwan Province", it contains only a quarter of the population and has no government. Ythlev (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan province can refer to either Taiwan or an administrative district within Taiwan. TFD (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Only the PRC considers all of Taiwan to be a Taiwan province, since you bring up laws and stuff. Ythlev (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the Republic of China no longer considers Taiwan to be part of the Republic of China? TFD (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, now we're actually flinging semantics at one another. Taiwan Province makes up less than 70% of the land area of Taiwan Island, and less than 30% of the total population of Taiwan Island. Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China makes up 100.5% of the land area of Taiwan Island (because it also includes islands administered by Japan and not by the ROC). Taiwan is neither Taiwan Province, Taiwan Island, or Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China; Taiwan refers to the country/state/regime/whatever that is less commonly known as "Republic of China". If none of you guys are willing to acknowledge that you're shouting at one another while conflating multiple different things, then we may as well close shop now because this discussion is going nowhere with that sort of attitude. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

And since I know one of you smart alecks is going to respond to my comment with "but Kinmen and Matsu exists", I may as well make a pre-emptive retort. Yes, Kinmen and Matsu are both part of Fujian Province, Republic of China, and not Taiwan Province. However Fujian Province, Republic of China (including Kinmen and Matsu) and Taiwan Province are both part of the "Republic of China", of which the common name is Taiwan. So yes, it is incorrect to say that Kinmen and Matsu are part of Taiwan Province, however it is not incorrect to say that Kinmen and Matsu are part of the country/state/regime/erotic sex dungeon commonly known as Taiwan. And no, Dongsha Islands do not fall under this same conundrum, because "Guangdong Province, ROC" has long been disbanded many decades ago, and today the islands fall under the administration of Kaohsiung City, so please don't use the overhashed "but Dongsha Islands exists" argument either. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

It goes by many names, in RS. But I suspect most people know it as Taiwan.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there an example of another country that includes an extraneous geographical term on its passports in the way that 'TAIWAN' is included on Taiwanese passports? Is it possible that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is in an incredibly complex political situation that needs to be treated with extreme nuance? All or at least the vast majority of the the English language documents generated by this nation state during the 21st century include the word 'Taiwan' in some sense. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we’re getting slightly off-topic here. Nobody is proposing to remove “Taiwan” from the article nor to rename the article. An editor proposed changes above that include replacing officially known as with also known as and removing the mention that claims to the mainland haven’t been officially renounced. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This government publication clearly states that the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)[6], so the Republic of China is not the only official name. The official name by definition is how the government calls it self, so first-hand sources are more reliable then news articles on this issue. The governmen has been gradually increasing the usage of Republic of China (Taiwan) over Republic of China over the recent years, and news reporters might not have caught up on the change. While there are multiple official names, it is not neutral for the article to only describe one of them as the official name. Also, about the two citations MarkH21 provided about Tsai says Taiwan is an independent state, the full text of the interview is on the president's website here[7], and the video is here[8]. She actually said "We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China (Taiwan)".The reporters made a mistake. --Visaliaw (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

About the terrirorial claims, while the it is true that the government has not made an declaration to renounce the claims, making this statement in the article would mislead readers to believe that the government still claims the mainland until a formal renouncement is made. This is not the case, since the dispute is about scope of the constitutional claims itself. In the perspective of those who believe that the constitution doesn't claim the mainland, it is not necessary to make any renouncement. For sourcing of the constitutional claims is disputed, we could cite the documents of the judical yuan interpretion case which mentions "各界對此「固有疆域」之認定至今未有定論"[9].--Visaliaw (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Publications and websites are not official documents. You say we ignore you but you keep ignoring this point. Ythlev (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is my response to Mark's argument. My response to your argument is above in the beginning of this section, right after your comments.--Visaliaw (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the territorial claims, that's why I suggested adding separate sentences about the modern legal dispute as additional information and context. It's unnecessary to remove the well-cited fact that the claims were never renounced and the citation at the end of the sentence does not support what the text was replaced by. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC); half of comment was split to the subsection below 06:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Republic of China (Taiwan)

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

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

That doesn't align with the Presidential Office summary's text. Nevertheless, the sources that I listed above aren't quoting Tsai directly and the point was that RSes still directly state the "Republic of China" is the / an official name. But perhaps "Republic of China (Taiwan)" as the conventional_long_name may be better than the line-separated version. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC); split from comment above into this subsection 06:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The other interview questions doesn't matter, it is clear from 1m30s in the video that Tsai said Republic of China (Taiwan), showing that the news reporters did not carefully distinguish between ROC and ROC(Taiwan) while writing the sentence, thus discounts it's reliability on the official name issue. It also shows how news reporters could ignore the change in the actual name usage of the government due to inertia. So what do you suggest for the first sentence ? How about put both Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan) in the first sentence as official names, since there are sources to support both names.--Visaliaw (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that a government uses an unofficial name does not make it an official name. West Germany and South Korea often used those names. They do this because that is what the rest of the world calls them. It did not mean that they had renounced their claim over the entire country (although W. Germany would at some point abandon its claims over Germany's pre-1945 borders.) TFD (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding to TFD’s point, Tsui said We are called Republic of China Taiwan (there’s no audible parentheses), which is not the same as saying that is their official name. The US being called America doesn’t mean that it’s their official name. The RSes above aren’t quoting Tsai when they write its official name; they are only attributing Tsai says Taiwan is an independent state called the Republic of China to her. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Reponding to TFD, the government doesn't only use Republic of China (Taiwan) heavily, the Taiwanese government website explicitly says the / a official name is Republic of China (Taiwan) [10]. This is a reliable source sufficient to support adding Republic of China (Taiwan) as an official name in the article. If you want to argue that Republic of China is the only official name, you are disagreeing with the Taiwanese Government on what the official name is. In addition, Republic of China (Taiwan) is also used in international treaties, such as the Republic of China (Taiwan)-Nicaragua Free trade agreement[11], Republic of China (Taiwan)-Eswatini Economic Cooperation agreement[12]. International treaties are formal documents and countries usually, if not always use their official name. The territorial claim and the official names are seperate issues and I did not make the claim that one implies the other as TFD said. Responding to MarkH21, my point still stands, the news reporters ignores Tsai saying the word Taiwan, showing that the news reporters did not carefully choose the name when writing the sentence, thus discounts its reliability. Anyway, I am now proposing to describe both Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan) as official names in the article, which does not contradict the sources you provided.--Visaliaw (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable compromise given all thats been said, I think its been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the Government of Taiwan sees both “Republic of China” and “Republic of China (Taiwan)” as acceptable official names for the political entity we on wikipedia call Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That's original research. Before the ROC lost its seat on the UN, it typically used the name China or Republic of China on treaties. Since then it de facto no longer claims to rule all of China and Mongolia. But it has not made any changes de jure. De facto means in fact, while de jure means in law. In fact the Taipei government does not pretend to be the government of all of China, but under its laws it still is.

Canada at one time was known as the Dominion of Canada, although that was not a legal name and has since been dropped. Then we have the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia.

TFD (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is obviously not original research, the Taiwanese government website is a reliable source. The rest of your arguments doesn't seem very relevant to the official name issue being discussed, but you seem to assume that the English official name is specified in law, while it actually isn't.--Visaliaw (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Visaliaw: Stop repeatedly enacting your changes. Does it look to you like there is consensus for your changes? There certainly isn’t, and your changes have been contested already.
  Open an RfC if you must, but don’t edit war your changes in. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the Taiwanese government website clearly supports that Republic of China (Taiwan) is an official name, and the opposers have not produced an effective argument supporting that Republic of China (Taiwan) is not an official name yet, and they stopped responding.--Visaliaw (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, if you ignore other editors’ points about use on a website not being definitive.

People not responding doesn’t mean they agree with you. That you personally find their arguments ineffective isn’t sufficient to overturn a lack of consensus. Nobody is obliged to respond to you until you are personally satisfied. Open an RfC if you’re unsatisfied with existing consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The website may not be definitive, but it is a reliable source using Wikipedia's standards.--Visaliaw (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, and it’s not the only reliable source. The point about not repeatedly making contested changes in the absence of consensus remains. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The current lead is not presenting the view of the Taiwanese government, the most authoritative source of its own official name.--Visaliaw (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Just because I stopped responding doesn't mean I agree with you. Your argument is not any more effective. we should either include all those names as the official name in the first sentence, or avoid mentioning the official name issue in the first sentence. That is not an argument; it is an opinion which I don't agree with. The current sentence has both terms, you want to repeat those two terms to make it unnecessarily longer, while having no benefits. Ythlev (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

If you continue to make the edit without consensus, I will report you. Ythlev (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The current article does not follow the WP:NPOV policy when describing what the official name is. The sentence you don't agree with is my suggestion to solve this problem. If you don't agree, please propose an alternative solution that follows the WP:NPOV policy.--Visaliaw (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that it violates NPOV. It is not a "significant view". Ythlev (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So you are saying the Taiwanese government's view on its own official name is not important.Visaliaw (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying the view that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is a name is insignificant. Ythlev (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, no one in Taiwan disputes the fact that the state is officially named ROC, even if they don't agree with it. All you are doing is trying to push a minority POV. Ythlev (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not my own POV, it is the Taiwanese government website saying the official name is "Republic of China (Taiwan)" (which implies that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is a name), and I am only arguing based on sources. Wikipedia is based on sources, not the belief of the general public in Taiwan. Not to say the official name is by definition decided by the government, not the general public. If you do not agree with your government, complain to the the government and ask them to change the website. Also I am not saying ROC is not an official name either, I propose to describe both as official names.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not my own POV. It is, because you are the only one who proposes the change. WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." it is the Taiwanese government website saying the official name is "Republic of China (Taiwan)" (which implies that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is a name,) Again, not a significant view which NPOV addresses. I do not make the same implication. Ythlev (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not the one who first proposed the change [13], and this change has been agreed by a few editors, I remind you. And you are grasping at straws by citing IAR because the policies are against you.--Visaliaw (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

When determining consensus, the quality of the arguments and Wikipedia policies are considered.--Visaliaw (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Listen, there’s an entire body of RSes that say that Republic of China is the official name. Some other RSes and the government website use Republic of China (Taiwan). Multiple editors have expressed concerns that including both is redundant, and the assertion that Republic of China (Taiwan) is actually the official name is contested.

If you would still like to enact the change, please open an RfC. Otherwise we’re just going to waste time here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, could you summarize the the arguments made to contest that Republic of China (Taiwan) is an official name? I don't see substantial arguments. If opposers express their opposition and than stop responding (in good faith), it creates an situation where it seems like there is no consensus, regardless of whether the opposing argument is valid.--Visaliaw (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Funny you should say that when I just responded. Ythlev (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether an argument is valid is not for you to decide. Ythlev (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure it is not for me to decide, that's why I'm asking Mark (or someone else) to summarize the argument points. And when I say stop responding I'm not talking about Ythlev.--Visaliaw (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My arguments against the proposed changes at the top of this section are in my !vote near the top of this section.

Regarding the tangent about Republic of China (Taiwan):

1. A plethora of RSes clearly state that Republic of China is the sole official name or an official name.
2. It would be ridiculously redundant to start the lead with Taiwan, officially known as Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan)

I’ve reorganized this discussion about Republic of China (Taiwan) into a subsection, since it’s not part of the original proposed changes in this section. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any RS mentioning sole.--Visaliaw (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wording like whose official name is the Republic of China implies uniqueness. Regardless, I wrote or an official name. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I agree that the confusion is what constitutes "defines it as the official name". Without a clear definition, I could also say I'm not aware of anything that defines "Republic of China" as the official name of the country either. The Oxford dictionary defined 'official' as 'Relating to an authority or public body and its duties, actions, and responsibilities.'[14] or 'agreed to, said, done, etc. by somebody who is in a position of authority'[15].--Visaliaw (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• The official ROC website states the "official name" of the country is Republic of China (Taiwan). [16] In all honesty I support these changes being made. Regardless of what reliable sources have to say on the matter the fact is that an "official name" of a country is inherently what the government says it is. That's what "official" means. The governing authority of Taiwan lists their official name as Republic of China (Taiwan). I personally don't like the name and it's rather unwieldy, but the fact of the matter is that they've decided on that name and their official government website lists it as their official name. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 05:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Chess: Just a clarification in case you intended to comment about the proposed changes that this section was originally about (otherwise feel free to ignore this). The actual proposed changes at the top of this section do not replace anything with Republic of China (Taiwan), despite that being the tangent that half of this discussion ended up focusing on. It makes multiple different changes. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a clarification that the first part of the proposed change and adding Republic of China (Taiwan) are different approaches to address the same issue Geographyinitiative proposed here [17]. I proposed to add Republic of China (Taiwan) as an official name in the first sentence earlier. After Ythlev expressed said that it would be ridiculously redundent, Phlar proposed another approach, to avoid mentioning the official name and leave it to the Etymology section, leading to the proposed changes at the top of this section.--Visaliaw (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

International image, liberties and human rights in Taiwan

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

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

Content dispute/CaradhrasAiguo's denial of consensus

This small change [18] by Stephen Balaban (talk · contribs) seems to be supported by the now closed state vs. country RfC. It was reverted by CaradhrasAiguo using the explanation “MOS:RETAIN” which is either extremely misleading or entirely incompetent as it has *nothing* to do with the issue at hand. Upon reverting their revert and letting them know that MOS:RETAIN most certainly is the wrong link [19] they reverted again this time with the explanation "RfC was about first sentence, not how to refer to other territories” which doesnt make any more sense than the first explanation, the RfC was about how to refer to Taiwan universally and there are no "territories" being described (maybe if we said HK was a neighbor there would be a point here, but we don’t) so *none* of the explanation makes sense. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was in reference to the ROC only (not other polities), and I mis-spoke in regards to "territories", as "regions" would be a fine substitute. You would do well to stop baiting discussion into irrelevant territory lest be viewed as WP:NOTHERE. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You still haven’t said why you object to the changes though, certainly nothing in the RfC precludes them from being made. Are you still arguing that MOS:RETAIN justifies your revert? By the way Taiwan, China, Japan, and the Philippines are countries not regions so I don’t understand what your objection to "Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the north-west, Japan to the north-east, and the Philippines to the south.” nor "Taiwan is among the most densely populated countries, and is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN).” as region wouldn’t be a suitable substitute there either... Did you misspeak again when you said you meant region? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The scope of RfCs or any other discussion has be properly defined or the above (typical) filibustering nonsense will rear its head. The among the most densely populated...that is not a member of the United Nations is WP:TRIVIA. And, as an aside, yes, "region" is an admissible description for nation states per Cambridge Dictionary Intermediate English. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What is your objection to changing state to country? Also that RfC was on what to call Taiwan wikipedia wide, not just in the first sentence. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

^^Big time {{cn}} on that one. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Don’t dodge the question, you made a revert and then edit warred when your revert was reverted... Why? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The RFC was also not about the first sentence, it was universal "There has been much debate and no consensus formed over whether to use the term "country" or "state" when referring to Taiwan.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The closer was also crystal clear "Taking all of that into account, I don't see the strength of argument in favor of "state" being strong enough to overcome the numeric consensus (in fact I'd say country has a stronger argument). As such, I'm closing this RfC as finding consensus that it is best to refer to Taiwan as a "country" rather than as a "state”.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I agree with this, and it's why I changed it. I don't think this RfC covers every article about Taiwan, but it covers this one surely. And to mix and match terms, especially in the same paragraph or two, is messy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Worded as it is was and with participation topping 50 editors on the talk page of the main page for a subject like this means the consensus applies wikipedia wide. Taiwan can of course be referred to in specific contexts with any of a range of other terms, but what changed was a wikipedia wide consensus to in general use “state” when referring to Taiwan/ROC to a consensus to use “country” instead. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ugh, do we really need to clarify everything to the letter? 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 Here's my !vote for neighbouring countries include X, Y and Z, with the rationale that mixing usage within the lede looks tacky and unprofessional. 🙄🙄 --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan's status quo

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

---

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

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

Its a country, if saying that offends someone thats not our problem. Wikipedia is not censored, not giving a straight answer to avoid any complications is the sort of geopolitical bullshit that has no place here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"I have searched many sources to find out more, and only about 18 countries formally recognize Taiwan as a country, and none of them are particularly influencing countries." So? How does that affect the reality of the Taiwanese people? They live in the place and interact with its government just the same way the people in any country interact with the government of that country. --Khajidha (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

It doesn't matter if it's a country, state, commonwealth, sovereign state, continent, or exoplanet. It doesn't matter if it does not fit the definition of a country and that universities would teach it as something else. What matters is that more sources found through Google call it a country, and that after a large and fair RfC with many participants, "country" was the word of choice. That's how it works here and this is a done deal unless something changes with Taiwan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Please note that there are also many sources call it a province of China. Therefore Wikipedia should handle this issue in accordance with its core content policy WP:NPOV. In other words, using "country"—which is based on just part of the sources—is unfair and does not conform to WP:NPOV. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• I’ll point out that de facto (and its synonyms) is used by most RSes when describing in more detail, and it’s an accurate descriptor. Using de facto in the article may be the optimal solution as most representative of RSes and satisfying NPOV. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

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

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

Just something to point out

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

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

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

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

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

For your first point, I would suggest looking at the very long discussion on this if you want clarification on why the community decided Taiwan as a country. The discussion is closed because the community has decided as per the discussion to label Taiwan as a country. Zoozaz1 (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, what does whether the US or any other country recognizes it have to do with anything? Is your country (whatever that might be) only a country because other countries say it is? And who says that THOSE countries are countries? And, if the opinions of other countries matter so much, where did the FIRST country come from?--Khajidha (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

They’re also wrong on the technicality that the US/most of the world does recognize it... Theres more than one type of recognition, the US cut diplomatic ties but never cut (or even agreed to cut) political, economic, cultural, military, and intelligence ties. If they didn’t recognize Taiwan as independent of China they wouldn’t be able to sell them arms, a reminder that for both the Euros and the Americans its illegal to sell arms to the Chinese. Until you see hundreds of US and European companies getting hauled into court for making prohibited deals with a “region of China” this point is moot. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

However, without disagreeing as to any of the underlying facts you cite there, it's still not our place as editors on this project to decide which types of recognition (and in whatever combination from which or what amount of countries) is sufficient to transform the state into a country. That is clearly the exclusive purview of WP:reliable sources under our content policies. I'm fairly certain that this issue must have been debated here countless times, but I am a little concerned by what I am seeing in the latest consensus discussion, which is to say something which seems to be problematically common on this talk page in recent discussions: a whole lot of WP:OR that is well-reasoned and which I might accept in another discursive arena, but which remains quite inappropriate under our NOR/NPOV standards.

Had I been party to that discussion, I think I would have (somewhat reluctantly) had to agree with with MarkH21's assessment and !vote for some variant of 'state' or 'de facto sovereign state', since his is the argument which most predicates itself in the sources and most completely eschews the idiosyncratic arguments based in personal analysis which otherwise dominated that discussion (on both sides of the debate, it must be said). Overwhelmingly the reliable sources seem to use 'state' where they are inclined to describe Taiwain as an independent entity at all--others are much more closely aligned with the PRC view and don't even credit it with so much as a distinction as a legitimate state, but rather designate it by some subordinate distinction or another. But overwhelmingly the sources (both as regards academic and institutional citations as well as journalistic discussion) mostly seem to avoid the extremes of labeling Taiwan either a 'country' or a 'province', and seem to either avoid the issue altogether or land on the somewhat nebulous description of a 'state' (usually with heavy caveats explaining the complex political history, much as this article, quite appropriately, strives to do).

Again, I am more than a little sympathetic to the logic behind some of the arguments advanced which suggest that Taiwan is a different animal from most other disputed states and that the arguments for it being reasonable to call it a proper country are more robust than in many other cases of disputed nationhood: I think those arguments have teeth to them and, bluntly, I just find myself more in accord with them. However, it is manifestly not our role as editors on this project to replace (or even supplement) the perspectives of reliable sources with our own deductions and determinations. And this is the case no matter how well-reasoned they are and no matter how overwhelming we believe the evidence to be: what I would accept as a solid rational or empirical argument for most contexts is a very different question from what I am allowed to accept in terms of an argument advocating for this or that piece of content on this project. My personal read on what constitutes the WP:TRUTH of the situation is just not valid on a Wikipedia talk page--nor are the deductions of any of our editors who may have couched their arguments in anything other than the WP:WEIGHT of the sources. And unfortunately, there is just too much of the former going on in that most recent discussion for me to feel comfortable with the result. (And that would have been the case for me regardless of the outcome, because both sides were using similar original research-oriented arguments based in their reading of facts).

All of that said, I am not by any means advocating for re-opening the issue any time soon: there's a stable, reasonable approach to describing the nation's status in the lead and the issue gets even deeper and more nuanced treatment later in the article; despite my dissent as to the outcome on procedural grounds, my opinion is that it simply would not be a good thing for the article to re-litigate such a basic determination again so soon. I just feel the outcome was problematic from a formalistic perspective and I suspect this will not be the end of the matter and that the consensus (which after-all, can change) will be re-examined at some point down the road. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)|}

I would point out that we had difficulty finding sources that referred to Taiwan as a state, Country was the one which "predicates itself in the sources” and it wasn’t even close. The only thing that debate proved conclusively is that "Overwhelmingly the reliable sources seem to use 'state' where they are inclined to describe Taiwain” isn't true. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, then the people arguing for "country" did an abysmally poor job of advancing their position, because rather than predicating their argument in the WP:WEIGHT of the sources (which would have been the easiest and most stable way to build support for their approach under our policies, if "country" is in fact the most common terminology of choice in the sources, as you assert) they (yourself included) instead chose to chase the red herring of original research determinations as to what made most sense to them, under their own rational determinations. Of all of the responses in that thread, only Mark did a deep dive into the sources and presented his argument in a fashion in accordance with WEIGHT, NOR, and NPOV broadly. And again, that's true of both sides: both those for 'country' and those for 'state' were overwhelmingly preoccupied with talking about what "made sense" to them--most !votes in that RfC do not mention so much as a single source and only Mark's response attempts to do an aggregate WEIGHT break-down using a sampling of sources from various contexts. So normally at this point I would invite you to make a counter-argument that relies on delving into the sourcing at at least an equal depth. But I meant what I said immediately above: I don't think it's really a good idea to open this can of worms again so soon: even having issues with how that discussion proceeded, I think 'country' is an acceptable term to work with for the present time.

However I also meant what I said when I pointed out that the structural/procedural problems with that discussion have left us with a weak consensus formed on a bad foundation, so I expect the issue will rear its head again over time until a new consensus based on more appropriate process is formed. Even if said consensus ends up arriving at the exact same conclusion as to what the word of choice should be, it will be better if only because it will be more resilient to the types of complaints that are going to keep showing up here (of which this thread is an example). Right now you have a consensus based on original research (at least insofar as the arguments that were advanced in the discussion: you may very well be right that you have sources that support your position, but neither you nor those who argued for the same approach presented those sources in the numbers and manner you should have to have made your WEIGHT argument). The reason you prevailed is that you still had the numbers in terms of editors and the other side was also largely built upon original research and had fewer proponents. But trust me, in order to prevail in the longer-term (and to hopefully bring some stability to the article as regards this question) you'd much rather have consensus based more directly on the weight of the sourcing, against which any other OR argument will be essentially futile. So, if you really do have a means of establishing that yours is the approach attested to most commonly in the sources collectively, I highly advise focusing your arguments in that area when this issue inevitably gets debated again at some future date. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Check out the Source List which was contributed to by pretty much everyone... It was demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt. We have a strong consensus which sits on a strong foundation, you’re out of line. As you said for now the issue has been settled, so we will respect consensus. Also just FYI "Well, if that's the case, then the people arguing for "country" did an abysmally poor job of advancing their position...” and “ Right now you have a consensus based on original research” is probably a WP:NPA violation because you’re misrepresenting their arguments. Don’t insult and disparage your fellow editors, your assertion about OR does just that. Don’t do it again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I advise you to either revert or strike your comment, casting WP:ASPERSIONS is taken very seriously. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh I didn’t even realize that the Source List Tag [DD9GA] was a community list; I would’ve added to it because it’s very short and non-representative. All of the sources in the list under my !vote use de facto state or de facto sovereign state, for instance, while the community source list only has one entry for state.

In the future, it may be worth having an RfC for adding de facto since that seems to only have been partially considered in the previous RfC and wasn’t part of the RfC wording. It’s not worth either of your time to debate the past RfC‘s outcome of state vs country. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the Source List was edited by at least a half dozen people and probably a few more, I’m sorry that wasn’t more clear and if I had realized at the time you didnt know that I would have been sure to point it out to you. BTW I picked two articles off your list list and while one uses de-facto in their voice neither use state, BBC says "the two countries” in their own voice (they do use state once but its not an endorsement of the term or really in their own voice "is treated by some governments as though it's a de-facto state.") [20] and France 24 says "de facto sovereign nation” [21]. One issue we’re going to run into with the whole de-facto/de-jure thing is that while by definition only one thing can be de-facto true at a time there can be literally infinite de-jure truths which are all true at the same time, most people seem to treat it as a binary (thats especially apparent from the now closed conversation). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I linked the BBC article because it says Taiwan has its own army and currency and is treated by some governments as though it's a de-facto state. although it is attributing the de-facto state to the treatment from governments, but not calling it one outright. About the France24 article, you’re right it says nation instead of state. I wasn’t careful enough with my labeling and was more focused on the de facto than the state part.

If a large proportion of RSes call it is a de facto state/country/nation/etc, then that I imagine that should be sufficient for most editors. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Given that many of the votes cast mentioned de-facto or otherwise in their preferred name I think its safe to say it was included in the RfC. I also think you will want to re-examine that list... I went through the rest of the mass media sources on it, the only two good ones are the NPR piece and the CBC piece (the FT was paywalled so I was unable to evaluate it.). The Diplomat, Taipei Times, Foreign Policy, and Japan Times articles are all opinion pieces. The The Wire piece is an interesting question, its commentary but the author is a subject matter expert so in context I would say this is good but for the expert’s opinion not for The Wire’s opinion. The nice part about the unified list is that it was checked in its entirety by a number of editors and errors such as this were caught. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Rather than adding the adjective de facto, which by itself doesn't say very much, it would be better to move the sentence about the PRC claim from the fourth paragraph to the first. This is much more helpful to readers than a generic latin term, and is commonly mentioned by sources. User:Kanguole made a similar suggestion above in #Restructuring of the lead, although I think it's better to stick to the basic fact of claims rather than try and meld population and the United Nations together. CMD (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Given that the RfC was worded only between country and state, in addition to most of the !votes not mentioning nor alluding to consideration of de facto, one could say that the RfC didn’t fully cover the separate de facto aspect and does not preclude a future RfC on that aspect (I’m not saying that we should do this now). I agree that a unified list is a good thing. I just think that that particular one was quite short. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Functionally I think we’re in agreement, I don’t see anything in the RfC that would preclude more specific RfCs in the future and I agree that there isn't anything to be gained from wading immediately back into the swamp. We’l have to be better organized next time (although if the perfect RfC exists I’ve yet to see it), there were a lot of experienced editors not exactly sure what the RfC was about and the sheer variety of arguments made I think reflects that point. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I assure you I will not be doing that. And you really need to refamiliarize yourself with what passes for a WP:Personal attack on this project if you think anything I said above even begins to vaguely cross into that territory: I didn't denigrate you, nor any other editor, their abilities, or their motives. I simply assessed that one argument was better predicated in sources and in policy than the other was--and I did so in scrupulously civil tone. For that matter, I painted both sides with the same brush when it comes to the major policy issue of that discussion. It is not an "aspersion" to have a different read from you on the strength of your own argument--and it doesn't particularly speak well for the strength of that argument that your response is not to defend it under content policy terms but rather to try to intimidate a fellow editor into removing a contrary opinion. If you're that incensed by how I described the argument you align with, you can always pursue process, but I feel I can tell you with some certainty you will not get the result you are seeking if you expect the community to validate your position that I have attacked you on a personal level merely by disagreeing with your reading of policy an the sources. This manner of "You said I was really, really wrong and that's just the same thing as attacking me!" argument does occasionally get advanced by relatively inexperienced editors, but you will find there is very little support for that position (which would be completely unworkable in the context of this project) in the wording of the relevant policies themselves or the community at large. Regardless I find there was nothing offensive or indeed incorrect in how I framed my previous comments, so I will not be retracting my observations as to the content issue. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

An experienced editor would know what OR is... Have a wonderful night, I’m glad you did not intend to be offensive or mock the consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

An experienced editor would know what OR is...

Indeed, so as an experienced editor, I will take another crack at explaining why exactly I have concerns after reviewing the recent discussions on this talk page regarding this particular matter: When an editor formulates their position about a content determination by employing an argument along the lines of "Well, I observe that X and Y are indisputable facts, and therefore I conclude that Z is clearly the Truth that we ought to be representing in this article, because Z clearly follows from X and Y, and clearly we want to be accurate." ...that is manifestly textbook WP:Original research. Or more precisely, it is WP:SYNTHESIS. An appropriate NPOV content argument on this project looks more like this: "A large number of reliable sources have concluded that A is the most accurate way to describe this, while a smaller but still statistically significant number of sources say that B is more accurate: therefore we should present A as the majority view, but discuss the existence of B, because clearly we want to represent the sources accurately." Now, a review of the last RfC on this subject reveals that there was a marked tendency towards the former kind of argument and sparingly little of the latter. Which is indeed a real problem, as it gives the impression that far too many editors were !voting their own opinions on this controversial topic rather than weighing the perspectives as represented in the sources. (And again, let me be clear, this was happening on both "sides" of the argument).

Now, as I would hope my comments above also make clear, I am not saying this is good reason to re-examine the issue now--I do not believe re-opening the discussion at this juncture would be productive, and I support just going with the current consensus as described in the close. My point was/is only that such a consensus is more vulnerable to continued objections than it would have been, had it been more firmly rooted in the sources, rather than in the idiosyncratic views of our own editors. Had the opposite approach been taken, one could dismiss further complaints as "opinion vs. the sources". But now the situation is much closer to "opinion vs. opinion", which I can tell you, from experience, leads to endless argumentation, in the context of this project. Indeed, that's the primary reason why we have an RS/NPOV/NOR approach here, as a opposed to a "truth-based" approach that leads to endless arguments about whose Truth is the "real" Truth.

I’m glad you did not intend to be offensive

On this site, never. I'll be honest, I've been known to be a little glib in some other areas of my life, but here on this project I have a pretty heavy inclination to straight-forward, unsarcastic dialogue. So if it ever seems like I am mocking you, I would request that you re-read my comments again and consider if they can be taken in a different light, because am dubious about any use of humour here and absolutely opposed to derision or ridicule of any sort. This is a special place with a special purpose and a special process, and so I approach it with special rules. I'm quite certain it makes me seem like a joyless machine to some people here at times, but that's not true: I like my co-volunteers here by and large and take real pleasure from what we build together. I just feel that this work should inspire us to embrace as sedate, unflappable, and objective a mindset as we can manage.

or mock the consensus

No, I would not say my purpose was to mock the consensus but rather to point out where I thought the discussion was problematic and why I think it is unlikely to stop people from raising objections, in the longterm (as per my comments at the beginning of this post). However, even had I been savaging the consensus in much more strident terms, that would not have been against policy. Not only are editors allowed to point out when they think a previous consensus was in error (or that it arrived at the right conclusion through the wrong argument), the project depends on them doing so: consensus can and does change and no article is ever perfect--everything is open to review. But again, I actually support sticking with the recent consensus for now, as the best path forward. I was simply trying to explain why I think you are still seeing objections to it, and why that situation may be likely to persist unless the arguments start to change a little.

Have a wonderful night

Thank you--likewise. Best wishes. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Khajidha, you said that "Is your country ... only a country because other countries say it is?", and to that, I answer yes. When later in your argument, you stated that how was the FIRST country made? And I would say, the world didn't start out with international regulations or the united nations. The first countries were made just by declaring themselves. However, time has passed, and things have changed. And Taiwan is not recognized by many, say, important countries, (Sorry if you are from any of them). Which brings me to my next point, mentioned by Horse Eye Jack. He says that there are many types of recognition. And when you brought up selling military equipment to Taiwan, I would also like to point out that the US wants Taiwan to be a country, but does not recognize it. The US is desperately attempting to strengthen Taiwan and try to use it as a tool to try to defeat China. And mind I add, Taiwan claims all of Mainland China as its territory, too. But we don't see all of mainland China in light green on the global at the top of the Taiwan page. NickleSonic (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"The US is desperately attempting to strengthen Taiwan and try to use it as a tool to try to defeat China.” if thats what the US is trying to do they’re doing an epically bad job at it... You should drop the hyperbole, people aren’t going to take you seriously when you say ridiculous things. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

That was intended for someone on Discord, I got what I was copy/pasting mixed up, sorry. NickleSonic (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability in current and future defensive efforts. The recipient will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen homeland defense," is what one of the sales for military equipment to Taiwan says. Taiwan buys some of the most military equipment from the US. And China is not actively at war with Taiwan. So is all of this military equipment really all for "defense"? and the "deterrent to region threats" literally just means "So China cannot reclaim Taiwan". NickleSonic (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

NickleSonic, I'm not going to call those factors irrelevant exactly, but neither is their veracity a particularly on-point subject matter here. There are a thousand different methodologies/combinations of factors which a reasonable person might use, for their own idiosyncratic purposes (or as a primary researcher or author), to determine whether or not Taiwan qualifies as a "true" nation. And for each of those standards, a thousand different opinions as to what extent those elements have been met. But that's not what we are meant to be doing here as editors on this project: it doesn't matter how well considered your argument is for using your particular combination of weighted consideration--nor is how much background your test is based in, how expansively it captures the total field of factors at play, or how many people you can get to sign on to the notion that you nailed the analysis. You could be the world's leading figure on the topic and could provide us with a hundred pages worth of the most nuanced breakdown of statehood, according to various treatments under international law and geopolitical realities, backed up by masses of intricately detailed research, troves of data, and support from both other major researchers and primary parties who help shape the fortunes of Taiwan. You could have those skills, that knowledge, an that perspective and present an unparalleled argument before us, and it would still not be appropriate for us to base our content upon it, even if we knew your stellar credentials and were all 100% sold on your logic and methodology. Because Wikipedia content is based on what reliable, published sources state, not the firsthand WP:Original research of our editors. So no matter how certain we are that we can reach to the truth through the use of our own deductive powers, and no matter how incontrovertible we think the underlying facts are, we still need to predicate our content arguments solely in what the sources have to say on the matter.

This is all very important in the present circumstance in particular because there is currently a standing consensus on this matter which was just recently settled upon and while this does not 100% bar continued discussion of the matter, it is considered to be potentially problematic (or even WP:disruptive) to keep re-raising the issue in repeated subsequent threads unless you have a good argument to make under our policies for why the consensus is wrong (even then, most editors will give the matter some time). The argument you are advancing (your own hot take, without reference to a single source) is not a good argument in those terms. Although I am opposed to re-opening this can of worms at present, I can theoretically think of good arguments for why someone might want to. But yours isn't one of those good arguments (in terms of our policies), so unless you are going to begin to root your argument more in the sources and the relevant content guidelines, I'd urge you to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this and let the matter go for now. I do personally think that in time the consensus here will probably be re-established around the standard of calling Taiwan a 'state' rather than a 'country', but it's not going to happen by virtue of the arguments you have advanced and the timing you have chosen makes it especially problematic. So let's just let the matter lay for now, improve other areas of the article and (perhaps) come back around to the 'country' issue in due time: with a little luck, both sides will be a little less dogmatic at that point and we may be able to strike on balance that most editors can accept. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

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

 Done Thank you for pointing this out! aboideau^{sapere aude} 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

The RFC discussion about the official name has died down and there is no agreement on what the actual official name is. Given that there is no agreement, per WP:Inaccuracy, the assertion of the official name has a potential inaccuracy, and potential inaccuracy is a reason to reduce the due weight that is assigned to such material, thus it shouldn't appear in the first sentence. Also, per WP:ONUS, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, so the disputed assertion of any official name should not be included without consensus. Therefore, I propose to change the 'officially' in the first sentence into 'also known as'.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur with this viewpoint. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which support the inclusion. Creating yet another discussion after your RfC failed to achieve the desired result is tendentious. CMD (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We are supposed continue to seek consensus when consensus is not reached yet.--Visaliaw (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn’t mean repeatedly ask the same question over and over. This specific proposal has been discussed 4 separate times in the past three months, including two formal proposals from you in the past two months. Now you’re asking again only one month after an RfC (with 12 !votes for the current status, 6 or 7 !votes for the proposed, and 3 or 4 !votes for both or similar) was opened. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The RFC is about which should we describe as the official name, this section is about whether the first sentence should include the official name, which is a different question. (Though some participants in the RFC also talked about the first sentence) This proposal or other alternative solutions has not been thoroughly discussed in the RFC. Based on their arguments, those who voted for both would also support this change of the first sentence and then discuss the official name issue in detail later in the article. This proposal is not contradictory of the position of those who think that Republic of China is the official name either, not mention it in the first sentence does not imply that Republic of China is not the official name. Discussion of alternatives solutions is also suggested by SnowRise, who voted for Republic of China. The argument in this section is new too, I am saying that based on that there is no consensus on what is the actual official name in the RFC, disputed content should not be in the first sentence. --Visaliaw (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis reverted with the edit summary of "Rv removal of well-sourced information". WP:ONUS says While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The information well-sourced is not sufficient for inclusion. The RFC above does not have consensus to include the disputed assertion of the official name.--Visaliaw (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No-one is building consensus for inclusion. The information in question has been included in this article for years. CMD (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Disputed information needs a consensus for inclusion, whether it is new or existing. WP:ONUS doesn't say it only applies on new content. Also it is inappropriate to start the article with a disputed statement.--Visaliaw (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not quite. The official name has always been the "Republic of China", and there has always been sources for it. It has longstanding consensus. The discussion was about whether there was enough new sourcing to change that longstanding consensus wording to "Republic of China (Taiwan)". That is what died down without agreement. There wasn't a shred of consensus to change "officially the" to "also known as." And I have no idea where you get that "inappropriate" stuff. We have many many articles whose titles are heavily in dispute... just look at Kiev. Just because there is consensus for a title doesn't mean that it is not in dispute. We had to come up with some agreement and it is often the best we can do, but not perfect. The same thing here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

At best there might be a note attached that says "some sources seem to indicate the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)"... but that is another discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

There can only be and must be one title and titles are subject to WP:Common name, so that is the best to do or titles. But here we have a choice, we don't have to specify the official name in the first sentence. Use "also known as" communicates to readers the same name but avoid the official name dispute. We could leave the official name issue to a later section, where different usages could be described more detailedly, so we won't have to be forced to choose one official name for the conciseness of the first sentence. The "inappropriate" stuff comes from the idea of "Potential inaccuracy is a reason to reduce the due weight that is assigned to such material." in Wikipedia:Inaccuracy. Yeah the RFC question is not exactly the same question as inclusion, but people disagree on what the actual official name is in their arguments, so there would probably be also be no consensus if the question is "should 'ROC is the official name' be included". About whether longstanding should be treated as consensus in WP:ONUS, there was an RFC hereWikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_69#RfC:_WP:ONUS, there are mixed opinions.--Visaliaw (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It has an official name so also known as is incorrect. And wikipedia has never worked that way. You are demanding a compromise and that doesn't always happen unless it is a biography of a living person where the guidelines are much more strict. If a sentence is challenged, and you can't convince enough editors to change it, then it doesn't change. You can put forth a compromise (like a note) here on the talk page and see if that flies since the RfC failed, but for the most part you did not convince editors that a change was warranted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how 'also known as' could be incorrect. 'Also known as' does not imply there isn't an official name. And I have no idea where you get that "how wikipedia works" stuff, but no consensus is not the same as failed.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: For one, since this is so closely related to the RfC at Talk:Taiwan#RfC: Taiwan's official name, I'll ask at WP:AN/RFC that it is formally closed so there is less ambiguity here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Human Development Index

The HDI figure is wrong. The UN subnational HDI is not appropriate for Taiwan as the stats provided by China are dated and thus inaccurate. The actual HDI of Taiwan is 0.911 calculated by Taiwanese authorities using the exact same metric UNDP used (life expectancy, GNI per capita adjusted by purchasing power parity, and expected years of schooling). See https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/02416246DBUFBVDH.pdf (released in 02/04/2020). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greysholic (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17/7/2020

Edit semi-protected To WiKi manager: This editing request is from Mainland Affairs Council Taiwan, presidential office transfer a website box letter by citizen said that some information need to be updated, because President Tsai took office sine 2016, during these past 4 years, "Relations with the PRC" has been changing a lot, but the old Taiwan introduction pages did not include this part, please help us to update the following information: Under "Relations with the PRC" this part, please add this paragraph

Since President Tsai’s inauguration as the ROC’s 14th President on May 20, 2016, she has repeatedly affirmed the government’s commitment to handling cross-Strait affairs in accordance with the ROC Constitution and the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area. President Tsai has also stated that the purpose of maintaining the status quo is to defend the Republic of China (Taiwan). Under the current cross-Strait scenario, these positions form the greatest common denominator among the people of Taiwan, they also constitute a shared bottom line and basis of unity among the people of Taiwan. Surveys commissioned by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) over the years show that over 80% of the Taiwanese people support "maintaining the status quo defined in a broader sense," a level of support that has remained largely stable. This represents the biggest consensus in Taiwanese society. It also aligns with the common interests and expectations of the two sides and the international community.

In early 2019, the CCP proposed the "Xi's five points." It has advocated "democratic consultations" between the two sides to explore a "one country, two systems model for Taiwan" that leaves no room for the ROC’s existence. Beijing has further reiterated that using force against Taiwan remains an option. President Tsai has firmly stated that Taiwan will never accept these attempts by the CCP to undermine the cross-Strait status quo and extinguish Taiwan's sovereignty, and the vast majority of Taiwanese people also firmly oppose the CCP's proposals, such position in turn creates a "Taiwan consensus" among the Taiwanese society. On January 1, 2020, President Tsai emphasized "four musts" and "four understandings." She called on the people of Taiwan to unite and jointly face an external threat under "four musts": mainland China must face the reality of the ROC's existence; it must respect the commitment of the 23 million people of Taiwan to freedom and democracy; it must handle differences between the two sides peacefully, on a basis of equality; and it must be governments or government-authorized agencies that engage in negotiations. The "four understandings" refer to awareness that China is the one undermining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, not Taiwan; China is using the "1992 consensus" to undermine the ROC; sovereignty cannot be exchanged for short-term economic benefits; and Taiwan must be aware that China is infiltrating all facets of its society to sow division. It is an unwavering principle of Taiwan to resolutely reject Beijing's use of "one country, two systems" to downgrade Taiwan and undermine the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. The government in Taiwan also follows President Tsai's "guiding principles" in countering mainland China's "one country, two systems model for Taiwan." It has promoted the enactment of five national security related laws and the Anti-infiltration Act. It has also implemented a security network for democracy to protect people's livelihoods, information security, and democratic oversight to resolutely defend the nation's sovereignty and democratic system.

On May 20, 2020, President Tsai assumed office as the ROC’s 15th President. In her inaugural address, she laid out general strategic objectives for national survival and plans for nation-building over the next four years, focusing on areas of industrial development, fostering a safe society, ensuring national security, and deepening democracy in Taiwan. On national security, President Tsai proposed the maintenance of "peaceful, stable cross-Strait relations." She also expressed the hope that, the Taiwanese people stands as a community united to overcome challenges ahead. The President reiterated that Taiwan will never allow itself to be downgraded or for the status quo in the Taiwan Strait to be undermined under the CCP's "one country, two systems." This is the government's firm principle and bottom line in handling cross-Strait relations. The President stated that her administration "will not act provocatively or rashly," neither will it compromise in the defense of national sovereignty and security. Stabilizing cross-Strait relations is a shared responsibility of both sides; Taiwan has called on China's leader to bear relative responsibility, respect Taiwan's right to engage in the world, and rationally consider ways to advance benign cross-Strait interaction based on "peace, parity, democracy, and dialogue."

The PRC supports a version of the One-China policy, which states that Taiwan and mainland China are both part of China, and that the PRC is the only legitimate government of China. It uses this policy to prevent the international recognition of the ROC as an independent sovereign state, meaning that Taiwan participates in international forums under the name "Chinese Taipei". With the emergence of the Taiwanese independence movement, the name "Taiwan" has been used increasingly often on the island.[133] MAC public opinion surveys have shown that an overwhelming majority of the Taiwanese people reject the "one country, two systems" (90%). More than 90% of the public also reject the CCP's diplomatic pressuring of Taiwan, its hindrance of Taiwan's involvement in the World Health Assembly (92.9%), and the multiple militarily threats it has made against Taiwan by dispatching military aircraft and ships to conduct navigation drills around the Taiwan area (91.1%). These figures indicate that the mainstream public opinion in Taiwan opposes the CCP's negative actions against Taiwan and hopes to participate with dignity in the international community.

• Inaugural address of ROC 14th-term President Tsai Ing-wen https://english.president.gov.tw/News/4893
• Inaugural address of ROC 15th-term President Tsai Ing-wen https://english.president.gov.tw/News/6004

Under "National identity" this part, please add this paragraph

In the latest survey conducted by the National Chengchi University in 2020 and published in July 2020, 67.0% of respondents identified themselves exclusively as Taiwanese, 27.5% identified themselves as both Taiwanese and Chinese and 2.4% identified themselves as Chinese. According to a MAC-commissioned poll in March 2020, the percentages of the Taiwanese public that regard the CCP as unfriendly towards the Taiwanese government and people rose to a 15-year high of 76.6% and 61.5%, respectively.

• https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3960029

Your help is very much appreciated.

Amysayhello2011 (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Yours Sincerely, Mainland Affairs Council, Amy Lin

Hello, and thank you for your input. Please be aware that for the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia, information should be supported by sources which contain all of the information added to Wikipedia. The links you have provided, while useful, cover only some of the information included in the text you have presented. Some information may also be too detailed for this overview article, although it may be a useful addition in other more specific pages. CMD (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Chipmunkdavis:. I'm a staff of Wikimedia Taiwan and help Amysayhello2011 to provide these information. Because I have communicated with her offline before, I can promise that she can understand the editor of Wikipedia may not accept all her requests. So editors of enwp can just add appropriate content according to your assessment.

And thought my my English reading ability is not good, I still can understand that the length of these requests is a little big to could confuse other editors. I'm sorry for that but that’s what Taiwan’s government departments may do sometimes. I'll ask some Taiwanese editor to look at here and try to shorten the text. However we still need help because some norms or habits may different between enwp and zhwp. Please assist us while we work.--Reke (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it is good that this understanding is there. I have updated the National Chengchi University survey information from 2014 to 2020, as suggested, with slight modifications using the taiwannews source provided. When making text suggestions, it is helpful to provide sources establishing what is said. For example, by providing links to the various Mainland Affairs Council surveys mentioned. CMD (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I am a confused because the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area defines the Taiwan Area as the part of China "under the effective control" of the government of the Republic of China and the "Mainland Area" as the territory of the Republic of China that isn't. There is no mention that China and Taiwan are separate sovereign states. It seems more like two governments claiming control over all of China, but controlling different areas. TFD (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The "separate sovereign states" claim is just DPP's point of view and does not conform to the constitution or law of the ROC concerning cross-Strait relations. DPP is currently the ruling party of the ROC regime, by the way. --Matt Smith (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request To WiKi manager: This editing request is from Mainland Affairs Council Taiwan again, thanks for your suggestion, we shorten the introduction content in about 100 words, please understand that this update is necessary for wiki readers and here we request again your kindness help to update the following information: Under "Relations with the PRC" this part, please add the following update content into third paragraph ( second paragraph.....the Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs)

Since President Tsai Ing-wen assumed office in 2016, she has stated clearly that the government will handle cross-Strait affairs in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC), the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area and other related legislations. Despite that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) proposed the “Xi’s Five Points” to facilitate the unification process to annex Taiwan in 2019, Taiwanese people have stood firm, refusing the “one country, two systems” formula on one hand, and pushing forward with implementation of the defense network for democracy and consolidation of the national security-related legislations on the other. The government has also repeatedly called on the CCP to rationally consider ways to advance positive cross-Strait interaction based on the principle of “peace, parity, democracy, and dialogue.” https://www.president.gov.tw/News/25319

Your help is very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.128.85.107 (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The above update information is by Amy Lin from Mainland Affairs Council Taiwan, Your help is very much appreciated Amysayhello2011 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Chūka Minkoku" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chūka Minkoku. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#Chūka Minkoku until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. KONNO Yumeto 05:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• THSR 700T Modern High Speed Train.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

English variety: non-consensual changes

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

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

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

Incidentally, this first edit that "corrected" spelling in the article in July 2003 used the non-US spelling of "favour" while <joke mode on> retaining the existing non-US spelling of "traitorous" <joke mode off>. Since Taiwan is not classed as an "English-speaking" country, consequently this article can not have what Wikipedia policy terms as "strong national ties" to a variety of English and, instead, MOS:RETAIN rules: non-US English should be used consistently throughout this article (except for direct quotations, of course).--BushelCandle (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The same editor used Oxford English spelling when, a few minutes later, this passage was introduced: "The Republic of China continues to be officially recognized (rather than "recognised") by 27 nations, mostly small countries in Central America and Africa but also including the Holy See. The People's Republic of China has a policy of not having diplomatic relations with any nation which recognizes (rather than "recognises") the Republic of China and insists that all nations with which it has diplomatic relations make a statement which recognizes (rather than "recognised") its claims on Taiwan." --BushelCandle (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There was consensus about a year ago to use American style English in this Taiwan article since Taiwan teaches Mandarin and American English in all its schools. The date style format did not have consensus one way since Taiwan uses an oddball style of dates. And "recognize" is the American English variety. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I rather assumed that would be the case. However, I did search the archives and did not find anything that would help me. (The section at Talk:Taiwan/Archive_28#Spelling did not reach a clear consensus, so since Taiwan is neither obviously an English speaking nation, nor with a substantial minority speaking a specific national version of English, I used our usual tiebreaker of original version, as outlined above.) Consequently I then fell back on our generic policies as I summarised above.

You do realise that as well as "recognize" being the way Americans spell, it is also correct in the Oxford English spelling variety - a subset of Commonwealth or British English?

Can you provide a diff for the consensus you write about, please? --BushelCandle (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

But "Recognise" is the Commonwealth spelling that is usually attributed to British English. That Spelling section DID reach a consensus that American English should be used. The article has many intermingled varieties, which is bad, and it's why we should err on the the English variety that the country itself uses. It tennis articles we use the variety of English the individual players use, and I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same here. There are spellings of program, neighborhood, labor, and center (American English spellings)... along with counterpart British spellings. A mish-mash. With a mish-mash, if we are going to use a particular variety it should be what the country itself uses and teaches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I note that you have not provided a diff to the spelling consensus that you wrote about above and that I asked you to provide.

The way that things should go according to policy is as follows:

a) Taiwan is not an Anglophone nation so no particular variety of English is prescribed (see also RfC on English variety and date format in Taiwan-related articles right at the beginning of this section)

b) It is established policy that there should NOT be a "mish-mash" of spellings within the body text of any one article

c) The consequences of considering (a) and (b) together is that we now need to pick a variety of English, label the picked variety on this article and this, that article's talk page using the appropriate template and then make sure that the article is kept consistent with that variety. If anyone opposes this simple and logical conclusion then please speak now or forever hold thy peace!

d) Unless we can reach a clear local consensus (not yet reached, as the Rfc conclusively demonstrated) then the variety of English is decided by choosing to "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety."

e) Unfortunately (from a strictly personal point of view, since I personally am rather uncomfortable using Oxford English), those first post-stub revisions (by the same editor) used Oxford English and consequently, without a clear local consensus to use a different variety, means that it is Oxford English that is the de jure variety for this article.

However, we can console ourselves with the knowledge that it is that Oxford variety of English that is officially or de facto used in the style guides of the international organizations that belong to the United Nations System that Taiwan is intent on remaining part of (or rejoining) such as the World Health Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, the International Labour Organization, the World Food Programme, the International Court of Justice, and UNESCO, together with all UN treaties and declarations, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Other international organizations that adhere to this standard are also important to Taiwan and include the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Interpol, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International and the World Economic Forum --BushelCandle (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Even A is really incorrect. In 2019 Taiwan will have two official languages and one of them is the American style English taught in schools. With it being their language of choice it's what should be used here. Things should not be changed into a language they don't use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

It did, but per your statement we should continue to use all types of spellings in the article? If so, you should practice what you preach since you changed urbanize to urbanise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That word was first spelled 'urbanised', changed by another user. Ythlev (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is partly because "spelling wars" can waste a great deal of editor time and attention and lead to non-collegial feelings proliferating that we need to stick to Wikipedia's established policies until and unless a clear local consensus develops to consistently use a different variety than Oxford English.--BushelCandle (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In 2018 a user started laterally changing the American English to British English in this particular article. That was why we had consensus in a discussion to make him stop, and we reverted it back. That time period is where we should be looking since this article has been written and re-written many times since it was created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And now that I look at user Ythlev and his aliases of (Szqecs and Szqecs1), he was the user that was causing all the problems. Looks like hes back with a new moniker! Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It really would help move matters forward if you would respond directly to the points raised in this discussion. To make this easier for you I will ask you a series of direct questions:

[A] What is the diff of this 2018 discussion that reached a clear spelling consensus? (If there wasn't one or you can't locate it then please say that clearly)

[B] Do you think this article should have a "mish-mash" or mixture of English varieties and date formats? (Yes or no, please.)

[C] Do you believe that this version of our article has, in the main, a consistent variety of English and date format? ie Oxford English and D-M-Y. (Yes or no, please.)--BushelCandle (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A - It's in the July 2018 archives, B - No, C - No . Per the last discussion if any consistent form is to be used it should be American style English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Last year you were a big problem, enough that we had to have a discussion on it and multiple editors had to revert all your changes. This time it was only once that I noticed so no problem, but I had no idea until my last post that I was dealing with the same editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

My stance is simple:

I believe that within the body text of this article there should be a consistent variety of English used and, in the absence of a clear local consensus to favour a different variety, that variety of English should be the ORIGINAL, 2003 variety of Oxford English (in conformance with official policy and unfortunately, in view of the local Taiwanese preference for US spelling). --BushelCandle (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Official policy?" Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I made that same point before but Fyunck(click) wouldn't have it. So for the sake of avoiding an edit war, just leave the spellings be. Ythlev (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You made 100s if not 1000s of non-consensus changes to dozens of Taiwan related pages last time, that had to be reverted by multiple editors, not just me. You convinced me that, even though Taiwan rarely uses dmy date format, to leave that alone. So I did. But it was against consensus to try and change everything to British English. Consensus was that if anything this article was to be in American English. In 2019 Taiwan will have two official languages, one of them being English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

What the heck are you talking about? What would you like me to say that I haven't already explained? You have disrupted so many times in the past that my head was spinning back then. But that was with all your other aliases and I assume you have changed your ways from forcing changes against the last consensus here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Before the editor Szqecs|Szqecs1 rampage of 2018 (which an administrator had to step in to stop), this is how the article handled it English variety:

Word	British occurrences	US occurrences	Comments
authorised/authorized	0	1
behaviour/behavior	1	0
colour/color	1	0
centre/center	3	5	"center" appears another 9 times in non-Taiwanese proper names and citations
characterised/characterized	0	1
criticised/criticized	0	3
defence/defense	9	4	"defense" appears another 9 times in non-Taiwanese proper names and citations
democratis-/democratiz-	0	7
formalised/formalized	0	1
industrialise/industrialisation/industrialize/industrialization	0	5
labour/labor	2	3
labourer/laborer	1	1
liberalis-/liberaliz-	0	2
metre/millilmetre/kilometre/meter/millimeter/kilometer	3	0
neighbour/neighbor	2	3
organised/organization/organized/organization	0	10	there are another 12 instances of "Organization" in proper names
programme/program	0	9	"programme" appears once in reference to a non-Taiwanese proper name: Programme for International Student Assessment
polarised/polarized	0	2
privatis-/privatiz-	0	2
publicised/publicized	0	1
recognis-/recogniz-	0	8	I did not count two instances of "recognised" in the infobox field labels
sinicise/sinicisation/sinicize/sinicization	0	2
stabilis-/stabiliz-	0	3
theatre/theater	1	0
Total	23	74

This is another reason consensus was set for American styled English as the article was overwhelmingly done in American English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), I'd like to point out that ize/ization spellings are perfectly valid in British English, so their use should not necessarily be treated as US English. Adam9007 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

I brought it up at ANI. We shall see what they have to say. Ythlev (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

On that narrow urbanized/built-up point, there is a difference in meaning between where its highly urbanized population is concentrated and where its population is concentrated in highly built-up areas. The change was a worthy attempt to work around the edit war, but if we're having to reword to avoid -ise/-ize words, the style dispute is having a detrimental effect on the content. Kanguole 09:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. You can only go so far with neutral wording. Ythlev (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder how many more instances we can change to neutral wording? It might be worth a try. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

You can't change everything to neutral wording, but you can often do some. On urbanized, I understand the difference in meaning, but I don't see the second as any worse. Given nowhere in the article do we call the population urbanized, the change was actually a better fit for the article text. I'd replace "built-up" with just "urban" myself, but that's minor. CMD (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with Kanguole, Fyunck(click), Ythlev and CMD that my forlorn attempt at commonality changed meaning slightly and that one "can't change everything to neutral wording". However, I also detect that some of you may have realized that my primary motivation is to deflect and divert from "spelling wars" that can waste a great deal of editor time and attention and escalate the build-up of non-collegial feelings when we really do need to stick to Wikipedia's established policies until and unless a clear local consensus develops to consistently use a different variety than the original Oxford English.--BushelCandle (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

To assist in this aim, here's a useful list of Oxford English spellings from the United Nations.--BushelCandle (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is why we went through this last year with the article mostly in American English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There must be synonyms and minor re-write tweaks that can alleviate all the spelling differences. That is a compromise worth some effort I think. I tried my best on some but perhaps other writers can find better choices on others? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits trying to find opportunities for exercising commonality Fyunck(click), it's much appreciated and a policy compliant tactic.

careful editing rather than spasm reverting is appreciated!

However, either having a mixture of English varieties (outwith quotations) or unilaterally reverting to an arbitrary point in this article's history where spellings were mixed does flout established Wikipedia policy standards and irritate some editors.

PS: I nearly forgot to thank you for the careful and painstaking way you changed Oxford English spellings to US spellings, being very careful not to lose other edits not related to spelling variety in the process...--BushelCandle (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I did my best not to have a mixture at all, and I think we can do better to remove/rewrite any argumentative words. It is not an arbitrary point in history however. Someone picking 7 May 2019 or 16 April 2019 would be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There really are only a few points in an article's history of editing that are NOT arbitrary: the very first edit to the article and the version that first introduced an identifiable variety of English. I have sourced the first edit that introduced a non-US variety of English right at the very beginning of this section, the only thing then left to do was to decide whether the article was then originally written in Hiberno, Australian, Indian or some other variety of English and I have also cited above the very next edit by the same editor that clarified that (of all the varieties of non-US English s/he could have used) they used Oxford English.

Now please stop trying to circumvent our Manual of Style: use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety - Oxford English.--BushelCandle (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Any article can be changed to anything by consensus. Nothing is forever here. Plus MOS states "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." There was consensus to change, and the most consistent usage, since it was re-written many times, is by far American English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If and when a consensus is reached to change this article's spelling from the ORIGINAL non-US English variety, then that would be within the rules - but I certainly don't see any such consensus so far. And, in the absence of such consensus, the original variety from 2003 needs to retained. End of.--BushelCandle (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The we will have to completely agree to disagree on that point. However the first usage in the article was the non-oxford date format in American style, MDY.... multiple times, and way before your listed entry. "Recognize" is certainly not British English but is either Oxford or American English so that one is moot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

@Fyunck(click): Do not convert more words if you have nothing to say to these points. Ythlev (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Back to BushelCandle's last edit. And who the heck appointed you God? This is what got you in trouble with administration last time you went edit warring and changed thousands of articles against consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I got in trouble for using AWB to make controversial edits, which is not allowed. There is no rule against making controversial edits manually. And you are now the one ignoring discussion, which is disruptive editing. Ythlev (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want to change the last consensus go ahead a start a new RfC. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The last consensus was to prefer no particular style. Ythlev (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020

Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), also retroactively known as Free China especially prior to 1970s (see §Etymology), is a country in East Asia. LVTW2 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't mention "Red China" at People's Republic of China, a similar nickname is WP:UNDUE here in the lede. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: but the new edit did mention it was "retroactively" known as China. If you must put this phrase in, you would have to make them distinguishable.LVTW2 (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The wording is confusing because the government of Republic of China refers to the territory of Taiwan as "Free China" because it is the part of China that they control. The three terms don't mean the same thing. TFD (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)