Talk:Bruce Aylward

Taiwan/The Republic of China in controversy section
A revision replaced "Taiwan" with "The Republic of China". However, this makes the section confusing, as it implies that China was denied entry to the WHO by its own capital city. The reporter specifically asks about Taiwan, which was the entity denied entry by Beijing, so I have undone that change. --73.53.71.137 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the confusion here arises from the similarity named Republic of China and People’s Republic of China. I understand that most people colloquially refer to the RoC as ‘Taiwan’, however that is incorrect in the strictest sense.

The RoC also includes territory in other provinces suach as Fujian, thus referring to the whole nation as ‘Taiwan’ is akin to referring to the UK as England. It is my understanding that the reporter was asking about the country as a whole and not part of it.

The most important reason for the distinction is that the Taiwan/Roc distinction is political in itself. Certain RoC political parties have tried to silence non-Taiwan Island based voters by suggesting that Taiwan Island is the only territory of the RoC. Many citizens also ethnically identify as Chinese, and still wish to connect with the mainland.

Hence I believe it is proper to use the official name of the region. Complexvitaminb (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have a view either way, but I think a point for using Taiwan is that the reporter actually used that word. But I don't really mind either way, but that seems to be one pointer, no? Koalava (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * While this is a real life controversy it isn’t on Wikipedia we call the country Taiwan and if you’l notice Republic of China is just a redirect to Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * no disrespect to the inhabitants of Kinmen and other outlying islands is intended by the use of Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I will concede as ultimately this is the English Wikipedia, which has a bias towards the marginalisation of certain East Asian issues. However I do not understand why anyone will pourposefuly edit an article to make it more vague and political Complexvitaminb (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t either, you realize that using Republic of China is making it more vague and political right? Almost nobody uses ROC anymore in english, most people don’t even know that Taiwan is also known as the ROC. In most of the world people see ROC and think China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to Complexvitaminb, would the best approach not be to add your point somewhere visibly to the Taiwan/ROC page? I do find the information you gave valuable in general, but it won't be conveyed by any of the proposed edits. Also, the information you gave here is not highly visible on the Taiwan/ROC page. So maybe that's the best place to add that perspective? Koalava (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained the political implications of the word, and as far as I’m aware it is more precise to use the official name of a country instead of a common name which may refer to the whole country or a geographic part of it. The pourpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, therefore it is on the contrary to favour the less correct term due to convenience for the uninformed; just as most people will call any small, colorful fish a goldfish, does not mean that a writer should on Wikipedia. Your ‘most people’ anecdote is a flawed premise.

Again, genuine confusion between the RoC and PRoC is not political.

On my edits I have used both the RoC and Taiwan in conjunction, and I believe the reasonable reader is able to deduce a connection.

However I disagree with ‘While this is a real life controversy it isn’t on Wikipedia’

This statement suggests that Wikipedia has a sort of inherent approval as to which controversy should be held on the site. The statement suggests tribalism, especially with the use of ‘we’. You seem to make this a premise too for your arguement. Please also be aware that the Chinese language Wikipedia makes full distinction between the RoC and Taiwan. I argue that it is due to those writers being more informed on the topic, as indeed the articles are more informative. Thus if such distinction is made by those more in the know, it is prehaps wise to adopt it.

It is also good practice to refrain from using language that can be de facto offensive or dividing, even if good faith is intended. I personally think it is not good to not adapt, for the reason of convenience to oneself, even when an alternate is provided.

Dear Koalava, please do so, you are very likely to be more proficient at this site than me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complexvitaminb (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC) My main edit on the naming issue was due to ‘RoC, (specifically Taiwan)’ which would definitely be confusing, however I agree that the situation has gotten out of hand
 * You appear to be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, this isn’t the place to do so. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

How is it not verifiable that a certain entity is officially called the Republic of China? You are the one advocating for a more controversial name. Again, I have already explained why the use of ‘Taiwan’ Is more associated to political or identity activism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complexvitaminb (talk • contribs) 04:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Dena.walemy (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Surely the key issue is that the reporter herself used the word "Taiwan" in her question to Aylward? You can thus avoid the whole debate - we are simply quoting her.

And whoever said that the official name of the "country" is the Republic of China - that in itself is a controversial statement as the United Nations follows China's line in refusing to recognize it as a country.

How many Taiwanese people have you met you introduced themselves to foreigners as being from the Republic of China? It's surely far more common to simply say "I'm from Taiwan." In the same way, people from Hong Kong don't say "Hello, I'm from the People's Republic of China's Special Adminstrative Region of Hong Kong" and people from the UK usually just say "I'm British."Dena.walemy (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That is the issue. ‘To foreigners’. Sometimes people have to sacrifice coherency in order to make themselves more understandable to outsiders. As this is the English wiki I will assume the reader is well exposed to the Anglosphere - when someone introduces themselves as being from Texas or Missippi, there would be little confusion as to where they are from. However if someone introduced themselves as being from Ningxia or Yunnnan, there Is likely to be confusion. Taiwan and HongKong have the benefit of being well known to most of the world. As ‘simply’ implies, it is a way of casual verbal conversation. While it is convenient that in the case of the RoK, Taiwan is the most substantive part of the contry, it is still not truly proper to refer to the whole place after the province, especially in a place where the reader is expected to be informed on the names.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2020
The claim that the WHO website was scrubbed of Dr. Aylward's name is incorrect. It could be a mistake, since the YouTube video misspelled his name, as Alyward [sic]. A google search of his name on the WHO website turns up plenty of references to him. https://www.google.com/search?q=aylward+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2F&oq=aylward+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2F&aqs=chrome..69i57.5783j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 184.58.173.195 (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Right, the source that is provided seems to jump to conclusions based on an apparent disjunction between the archived snippet that appears in a search engine result and the live page. A close inspection of the Archive.org mirror of that page does not show Mr. Aylward showing up for at least a few months. I have not managed to find exactly when they removed or moved his biography by transversing the archives. Mavaddat (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's been captured just yesterday (when this interview was released) on Google's cached pages and multiple times this month before March 28th on archive.org:


 * Google Cache


 * This is Google's cache of https://www.who.int/dg/adg/aylward/en/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 28 Mar 2020 10:14:33 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.


 * Archive.org/Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.who.int/dg/adg/aylward/en/
 * Now-broken biography link, that redirects: https://www.who.int/dg/adg/aylward/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diogofmaciel (talk • contribs) 02:02, March 30, 2020 (UTC)
 * IP users do not recieve ping notifications, so replyto, ping, they are useless for IP users. Instead, place  on their user talk page instead. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's  (talk) page 05:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The WHO did remove his biography from their webiste, and many sources state that this is true. Also, this edit request was not specific, and is declined. I assume the issue is solved, request closed. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's  (talk) page 05:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Presence of Bruce Aylward's biography on WHO pages in non English languages
On the WHO website, Bruce Aylward's biography is still present, but in Arabic (https://www.who.int/dg/adg/aylward/ar/), in Chinese (https://www.who.int/dg/adg/aylward/zh/), in French (https://www.who.int/dg/adg/aylward/fr/), in Russian (https://www.who.int/dg/adg/aylward/ru/) and in Spanish (https://www.who.int/dg/adg/aylward/es/). The page in English has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.19.215.193 (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020
His political affiliations to China [2] needs to be added to offer a comprehensive view of the politics of world health in contrast to their failure to provide proper advise at the start of the pandemic [3].

Why: This will help foster critical thinking. In time of struggle and confusion critical thinking is of utmost importance This public figure of the WHO is politically affiliated to China and against self governance of a country, in this case Taiwan, which has shown incredible resourcefulness in the face of the pandemic as shown by their statistic. [1]


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's  (talk) page 04:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Answer: Add the following to section: "Controversies"

He has been criticized for his affiliation to China [2] in the context of the WHO downplaying the Covid-19 epidemic [3].