Talk:Taiwan/Archive 24

Chen Shui-bian conviction on corruption charges
I was just wondering why the fact Chen Shui-bian was convicted of corruption charges isn't mentioned in the article. The last paragraph on Democratization only says "that President Chen Shui-bian stepped down and was notified by prosecutors of possible corruption charges." KenSV (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Difference in content between English and Chinese Wikipedia
The article for Taiwan on Chinese Wikipedia, 中華民國, does not explicitly state that the Republic of China is sovereign. Why is there a difference in this kind of content between different versions of Wikipedia? That seems to go against the philosophy of the Wikimedia Foundation, which promotes uniformity and quality of content. Wiki Winters ☯ 韦安智  22:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't think it's at all unusual for two different language versions of Wikipedia to address the same topic differently. Secondly, in this case, I think you are wrong, and the Chinese version does specifically identify the ROC as a "國家" (country/nation) in the very first sentence. Furthermore, the word "國家" is wikilinked to the article for "sovereign state" (主權國家). Where's the inconsistency? Phlar (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then doesn't that go directly against their own policy? See section "海峽兩岸政治" of Wikipedia:避免地域中心. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it states that the ROC's sovereignty should not be acknowledged one way or the other for the sake of neutrality. Wiki  Winters ☯ 韦安智  19:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose it might violate their own policy. Perhaps you might want to bring it up with them over there, on the Chinese talk page. Phlar (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You also have to remember the sourcing. Our policy is to use English sources first, and use others if the English sourcing is missing/lacking in some way. I have no idea what the protocol is for the Chinese wikipedia but perhaps it is Chinese sourcing first. That could lead to a very different article... just as it would for Tibet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's still utterly confusing to me every time I go here for research that ROC and Taiwan are conflated. It's confusing over there when talking in Chinese, and it becomes even more confusing in English. Half the time it gives me the opposite results. Want to read about the history of the ROC itself? It's not on a page called "Republic of China" as I would expect, rather, it's on a page called "ROC until 1949" see source. Want to read about Taiwan and its own unique culture and history? Sorry, you're going to get redirected to a long page about the ROC, which has only been on Taiwan for less than a century. The more I learn about the history, the more confusing the wikipedia community decision to conflate Taiwan and ROC seem to me. I'm not complaining about the content, I'm not even claiming to know a better way to organize it myself; it's just this particular (admittedly very tricky) detail seems like it could be clarified if the current article was renamed to correctly match the name of a country in a non-biased way, such as it is used formally by Taiwan itself: "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Iangreen (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What's even ironic is that if you do a Google search for "Second Sino-Japanese War", it lists "Taiwan" as a combatant because Google gets the information from Wikidata, and the system determines that the most common English name for ROC is "Taiwan". -- benlisquare T•C•E 03:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * a perfect example of the kinds of issues it causes- thanks Iangreen (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * strictly speaking, the Republic of China is not coterminous with Taiwan. It includes Jinmen (Quemoy), part of Fujian province.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entenman (talk • contribs) 01:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Description at Article Lead (Currently "sovereign state")
I am aware that this essentially the same subject is being discussed in the section of this talk page "Difference in content between English and Chinese Wikipedia," but the discussion there seems slightly derailed from the core citation, NPOV, and related issues. I am also aware that this is an extremely sensitive issue, and yet there does not currently seem to be much useful discussion on the talk page concerning the leading description, in particular, even searching through the archives. There have been a couple of non-registered users making edit requests concerning this matter, but they have all simply ended with something to the effect of "Get registered and maybe make the change yourself."

In my opinion, the current opening sentence "Taiwan...is a sovereign state in East Asia" seems to be a likely violation of NPOV policies. The statement is also unsourced and seems to contradict the more nuanced discussion of the subject's status in the rest of the article, presenting potential confusion to readers.

I added the qualifying phrase "de facto but largely unrecognized" before the phrase "sovereign state" with three citations from English-language legal journals that I believe support such a characterization. I intended to maintain deference to the existing wording through the use of a qualifier, rather than deleting what was already there. My edit was reversed with a comment to discuss on the Talk page, which I assume was a good-faith effort to not make a controversial change without discussion.

The reason that I believe "sovereign state," unqualified, is a poor initial descriptor, both generally and according to Wikipedia policy, is that it is a legal term of art with defined (if somewhat contested) meanings. See source 1 and source 2 Some scholars focus on the effectiveness of an entity conducting affairs in the manner of other states, and others focus on recognition by other states. The assertion that the ROC is a sovereign state is very contentious at best, likely false, on the latter view, given the low proportion of other state actors that recognize the ROC. The former conception of sovereignty makes the claim of ROC sovereignty more arguably true, but still with many caveats (the ROC officially claims the territory of Mainland China but exercises no control; it is unable to participate in most international regimes and frameworks to the same extant as other state actors). Even if a claim is arguably true, it would seem to violate NPOV policy to present that claim entirely unqualified and uncontested in the opening sentence of an article, which is presumably the only part many readers see.

I am not particularly wedded to my phrasing "de facto but largely unrecognized sovereign state." Here is a non-exhaustive list of some (possibly less clunky) alternatives perhaps befitting the leading descriptor: ·"political entity" ·"territory" ·"partially recognized state" (proposed by an unregistered user)

Since it seems to come up frequently in relation to this topic, I would also like to remind any the is/ought distinction: An argument that things would be better if the ROC were, or were treated as, a sovereign state is not the same thing as a description of the actual state of affairs.

Given that no reason for the original reversion was presented beyond the implication that it needs to be mentioned on the talk page, I will revert my edit back. Nalkoff (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually it's discuss first, convince others, and then make a change. If you make a bold change and it gets reverted you should never revert it back again without consensus. Also refs don't work so well on talk pages as they rarely have a reference section. They float next to whatever was posted last and make a mess of the page. Inline links are better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. I'll leave it as it is now, then. And thanks for fixing the inline citations. I do hope somebody actually debates this. Nalkoff (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you used the search box at the top of this page to view the previous "sovereign state" discussions on archived talk pages? There are dozens of hits over the past 10 years or so. The most recent of these, in Archive 23, concluded with the retention of "sovereign state," but there wasn't a clear consensus. Summarizing the previous discussions and proposals might go a long way toward building a consensus for change. Phlar (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Capital Problem
It's better to state that, though Taipei, was considered the capital in the Taiwan Name Rectification Campaign, the capital has never officially changed to Taipei, and from the constitutional and internationally conventional viewpoints, it's better to remain Taipei as the seat location of central government of ROC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.121.160.126 (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Independant Taiwan
Taiwan is an independant country while China is still failing to take over. China hasn't taken over Taiwan, therefore it should still be called Taiwan. Eyrie9114 (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Taiwanese government's official position technically still is that Taiwan is a part of China. The area currently administered from Taipei is referred to as the Taiwan Free Area, since the rest of China is considered to be under Communist Rebellion.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090708171314/http://www.ey.gov.tw:80/mp?mp=11 to http://www.ey.gov.tw/mp?mp=11
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050509192147/http://www.mofa.gov.tw/webapp/mp?mp=6 to http://www.mofa.gov.tw/webapp/mp?mp=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Current President
tsai Ing-wen is the president of taiwan now. This should be updated and changed. 74.64.102.46 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

tsai Ing-wen is the president of taiwan now. This should be updated and changed.

A concerned Wiki Reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.102.46 (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, she is president-elect Iangreen (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * She isn't acting for the moment. She'll take office in May, That's why we still keep Ma Ying-Jeou as acting president Ambroise.sammy (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Republic of China
This article is about the republic of China - i.e. the legitimate non-Communist government of China. It is not about the island or province of Taiwan. The article should therefore be titled "Republic of China".Royalcourtier (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you haven't done so already, you might want to review the previous move discussions. For relevant links, scroll up to the box that starts with: This page was previously nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move discussions.... Phlar (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

First sentence
The first defining sentence of this article has been change continuously, so it deserves some discussion.

Taiwan had been defined as a sovereign state, country and now an island. The term in fact is the name of an island, but is almost universally used to refer to the Republic of China. Since the articles Taiwan and Republic of China were merged in the past, it is obvious that this is the case, and that for the purpose of informing the public about a term used in the general sense, Taiwan can be defined as a country. Szqecs (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For years the first sentence said:
 * "Taiwan (see below), officially the Republic of China (ROC; ), is a sovereign state in East Asia.
 * It was quite recently changed to several different options without consensus. Until such time that there is consensus, that is how it should remain instead of edit warring. So bring different options here so we can all look and see if one is perhaps better than the long-standing version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "sovereign state" is not the best term because there is a debate about sovereignty. The term is quite specific and technical. As I mentioned, since we shouldn't deal with technicalities, we should use the more layman term "country". Szqecs (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I also feel that "sovereign" doesn't need to be there. I would prefer "state":
 * "Taiwan... is a state (polity) in East Asia."
 * The opening sentences of the State (polity) article seems to fit Taiwan's situation: A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government. States may or may not be sovereign. Phlar (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually that would be a capitalized State since it is not a state like California in the United States. It could also be a Nation. Everyone knows that for political reasons Taiwan is a very tricky situation for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia Britannica calls it a "Self-governing island." It is in the list of nations in the "Nations Encyclopedia." The World Almanac mentions the word "country." Taiwan itself issues it's own passports, has it's own army, and acts as if it's a sovereign state, in everything except international recognition (which is sketchy at best). The BBC calls it a country that "for all practical purposes been independent since 1950." Everyone treats it as a sovereign state, but won't call it a sovereign state because they lose their relationship with mainland China if they do so. Wikipedia doesn't have to be so careful. It is certainly a de facto sovereign state in everything but name. I would actually go with de facto sovereign state as the best compromise. It would signfy sovereignty in everything but name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In U.S. English we usually wouldn't capitalize State unless we're using it in a proper name like "Vermont State Bar." Phlar (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * But in US English, country is used in place of State. In other English speaking countries country is different than State. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Country" can also mean "area" or "region" in the US, as in "coal country." Phlar (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually if you read through the article, there is no consistent definition of a "state". Therefore there isn't a big difference between using "state" and "country". I guess I'm fine with either. The latter has the advantage of being more commonly used though. Szqecs (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's not much difference between "state" and "country," but if you try to use "country" here, someone will want to change it every other week, whereas "state" might be allowed to stand. Phlar (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think your optimism is, unfortunately, sorely misplaced. For what it's worth, I support "country" or "state", with no wikilink. wctaiwan (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's me, forever the optimist. Why no wikilink in the case of "state"? Phlar (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Linking to sovereign state is going to be unacceptable to some (and I'm perfectly happy with not doing so), and since state (polity) primarily deals with political theory, linking to to it fails to give to give more context or make the term clearer, which I think are the primary goals of a wikilink. wctaiwan (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, makes sense. Phlar (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The lead sentence currently asserts that Taiwan is a sovereign state. This conflicts with information contained in the article's Political and legal status section, where it says: "Internationally, there is controversy on whether the ROC still exists as a state or a defunct state per international law", conflicts information in the Political status of Taiwan article, and appears to be a forceful assertion of editorial WP:POV. The term Polity would arguably be more neutral and more correct here with, perhaps, a footnote suggesting, or somesuch. Obtaining consensus for that would probably be difficult, though.


 * Note that WP:LEAD says: "... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." (emphasis mine) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As in many cases, NPOV does not mean avoiding taking a position—it means giving due weight to the positions. A case could be made that we should use "state with limited recognition" (though I dislike the phrase since it ignores Taiwan's normalcy and the stability of its political status), but "polity" is inappropriate as basically no reliable source characterises Taiwan as such.
 * Also, keep in mind that descriptions of Taiwan's political status on Wikipedia tend to reflect the viewpoint of whoever last edited and didn't get reverted; I'd be wary of relying on them. wctaiwan (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree with "states with limited recognition" because "limited" is vague. Are South Korea and China of limited recognition? Not to mention there's no point of mentioning that. If we must, we should at least use "Non-UN state". Szqecs (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wctaiwan that it would be changed all the time regardless, like it did after I started this discussion. As long as users monitor the page and require changes to be discussed first, it should be fine. Also as you pointed out, state (polity) primarily deals with political theory, therefore I still think "country" is better. Szqecs (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was Wctaiwan who said that state (polity) primarily deals with political theory. Regardless, I'm OK with "country" or "state," although I'd prefer the latter. Phlar (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright I think we have a consensus to use "state" without link. Szqecs (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Abkhazia infobox RfC
Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia. CMD (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect
The top of the page suggests a redirect for "Taiwan island", however, the link just leads back to this page. The sentence should be removed. I was unable to do it myself because the page is protected and I am unable to recover my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.13.160 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ fixed the link as someone had broken it a year ago and it wasn't noticed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead
Can we stop editing the lead to contain our individual preferred retellings of the ROC's history and political status? We really should just establish a consensus version (preferably some kind of lowest common denominator among major sources), backed up by sources in the body, and stick to it. The kind of editing that happen in bursts and change-partial revert cycles every couple of weeks really isn't helpful. wctaiwan (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. My personal opinion is that there needs to be a clarification so that readers don't confuse Taiwan (island) with the ROC. Because of "One China" controversy, people tend to avoid calling the ROC's official name (Republic of China) and instead use the name of the island it is currently based in to refer to it. However, Taiwan is an island name after all, and readers need to at least know that. By the way, it is very confusing that the English Wikipedia combines Taiwan and the Republic of China into one single article. The Chinese Wikipedia makes them two different articles, and that saves lots of confusions. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No need for two articles. In English the terms are synonymous and Taiwan IS the English name of the country. We do sort of have two articles as the Island info is located at Taiwan Island. As for confusing readers, the second and third paragraph explain the situation just fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't go off-topic to discuss making them two articles, but there is a reason that the Chinese Wikipedia makes them two articles. Although the second and third paragraphs explain the situation, they are still not explaining why the ROC is being referred to as Taiwan. It's somewhat abrupt that the next paragraph starts as "Taiwan..." directly. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the clarification should be written in the {{about template, as is done for all articles. I don't think we should assume readers to be at their worst. The template as it stand should tell people that there are two Chinas, and that the China with 1.3 bn people is at the China article. And although Taiwan is the name of an island, when people search for Taiwan, they are usually actually looking for ROC. It sounds like you really want to emphasis that Taiwan is an island and I don't think it is necessary. Besides, Taiwan (island) is really Geography of Taiwan, which means the island isn't really a notable topic. Szqecs (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not likely that Wikipedia should take a stand on the One/Two China topic so let's not talking about that at here. I personally think it is necessary to emphasis that Taiwan is an island, but I respect your opposite opinion. I guess the reason that Taiwan (island) is being redirected to Geography of Taiwan is because this article is currently occupying Taiwan's name. I had started a new section to suggest making Taiwan and Republic of China two different articles. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)



"It's not likely that Wikipedia should take a stand on the One/Two China topic"

Take a stand? Which side is the current article on?

"I personally think it is necessary to emphasis that Taiwan is an island, but I respect your opposite opinion."

I gave a reason for why I think it doesn't need to be emphasized, you didn't.

"I guess the reason that Taiwan (island) is being redirected to Geography of Taiwan is because this article is currently occupying its name."

There's no reason that Taiwan (island) can't be a general article about Taiwan, the article you wish to split off, instead of just geography. You can go ahead and make that change actually, if people agree. If you are going to, I suggest Taiwan Island actually. Szqecs (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My reason for emphasis is clear: Taiwan is a geographical entity while the Republic of China is a political entity. They are two different things and should not be regarded as one thing. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a reason for why it needs to be written not emphasised. Szqecs (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

{{reply|Matt Smith}} Also, you mentioned that there is a reason that the Chinese Wikipedia makes them two articles, and that combining them is confusing. Well, there is a reason why the articles have been combined, have you read that discussion? The point of reading Wikipedia is to learn something about a topic, and by just reading the second paragraph of the article, the average reader should know what is going on. So being initially confused by the title just isn't a big deal. Szqecs (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, readers should not be confused at all, not even by the title. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * {{reply|Wctaiwan}} Writing this article according to major sources is difficult though. How many sources even mention "Republic of China"? The sources would need to be really selective in order to be accurate. Szqecs (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * {{reply|Matt Smith}} It's impossible to write it in a way that wouldn't confuse anyone. Your revision was confusing to me. Without knowing anything about Taiwan or China's history, the first paragraph already bombards me with the following concepts: ROC and PRC are different, it was originally "based" in "mainland China", Taiwan makes up 99% of ROC's territory instead of 100%, the "Free area of ROC" is not governed by PRC, this is somehow the result of a civil war, only 22 countries recognize it. This is absolutely confusing. You need to first know the history to know what is going on. The article should be written in a way that is least confusing to most people. Szqecs (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And may I hear your suggestion? I understand the confusions to people who don't know the related history. Tons of confusions could have been avoided by not mixing Taiwan and the ROC. By the way, it should be noted that, it is that the ROC claims Taiwan as its own territory, not that Taiwan is the ROC's territory. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the article as it stands is perfectly fine. Most people who reads through the history should know what is going on. Szqecs (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for other users' opinions then. As you mentioned earlier, the lead is being confusing. I think a few sentences for explaning the reason of the use of "Taiwan" is still necessary and helpful. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please give your opinion on this addendum to "Taiwan is ranked.." in introduction
Looking for a consensus to know if the following changes should be added or not to the article.

Hi I would like to propose to continue this part in the introduction : "Taiwan is ranked highly in terms of freedom of the press, health care,[11] public education, economic freedom, and human development.." with:

The country fares poorly in terms of income equality 1, perceived corruption 2 and air quality 3. Noticeable facts are that Taiwan has the highest density of scooters per person 4, the largest CO2 single source 5 and possibly the richest political party 6 in the world.


 * Richest political party in the world? Do you have proof of that? I would have thought that the Chinese Communist Party would be by far the richest political party, by several orders of magnitude. After all, how many political parties can afford to run a 3+ million person armed forces?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, the information comes from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang#Current_issues_and_challenges and a few news articles. You can type "richest political party in the world" in a search engine. I added a 'possibly' to the sentence though since there is a lot of uncertainty (estimation around 1 to 10 billions of dollars). The difference with the Chinese Communist Party for example is that the PCR is using the money of its country to run its army. There's a lot of bigger, more powerful political parties but not many of them have a lot of wealth in their actual party accounts.. Pips 01:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Jojonouvo (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but who should I ask to get a consensus? Jojonouvo (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that @Becky Sayles simply meant that, for potentially controversially changes like this, the Edit semi-protected template should not be used until consensus has already been formed. To form consensus, start a discussion here, which you've already done. Phlar (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I support your request.Phlar (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What can you do when nobody comes to support or reject the request? Pips 15:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you've given people ample opportunity to respond. Nobody object to anything but the "richest political party in the world" claim, so why don't you leave that part out but otherwise make the edits your propose, including inline citations, and see how other editors respond? Phlar (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Please read Consensus before requesting again.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016
The following sentence at the beginning of this article： "Taiwan，officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia.” should be modified as "Taiwan is a region in East Asia."

It is inappropriate to define Taiwan a state or a nation. Taiwan is not the same as "Republic of China (ROC)". The Taiwan region historically has been part of China, and is currently recognized officially as a province of the People's Republic of China by most of the countries in the world as well as the United Nations (See below UN General Assembly Resolution 2758[1], "History" section).

The Republic of China (ROC) has also claimed that it's the legitimate government of the entire China, which includes the Taiwan region. However, the Republic of China is not recognized as an independent country by most of the countries in the world[2]. By any means, Taiwan has never been a nation or state at any time in history and should be defined as a "region" only.

[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758 [2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Foreign_relations

Ever930 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The information about the region you discuss seems to be covered in the article Geography of Taiwan, which is at the top of the page Taiwan. About the recognition of the state, please consider further discussion here with others on this page before you open an edit request. Citations to Wikipedia articles are not sufficient as internal refs to WP itself is not consider a reliable source — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 07:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The interpretation of the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 made by Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-moon is controversial. The resolution did not mention Taiwan at all, let alone defining Taiwan as being part of China. I had just modified the "History" section of that article. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2016
121.207.41.242 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is not an edit request. Topher385 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make Taiwan and the ROC two different pages
After checking the table of contents, I just realized that this page also contains the history of Taiwan (island) such as Qing rule (1683–1895) and Japanese rule (1895–1945). And that is funny.

The Republic of China was founded in 1912, it has nothing to do with the Qing rule and the Japanese rule of Taiwan (island).

Is this page talking about the political entity Republic of China or the geographical entity Taiwan (island)? If it is the former, then please move those histories of Taiwan (island) to a new page and only contains history of the Republic of China itself (starting from 1912) and redirect this article to Republic of China. Currently this article mixes the two completely different things and is very confusing.

Now you know why the Chinese Wikipedia have to make them two different articles. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually the English Wiki used to have 2 articles, but was later merged. Please read the discussion on that. The part you talked about history makes no sense. History has no borders. People living in the ROC today have lived under Japanese rule. How are they unrelated? Szqecs (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because the ROC is administering Taiwan doesn't mean Taiwan belongs to the ROC. Taiwan's legal status is debatable and the ROC's claim over Taiwan is questionable so it's not appropriate to refer "people living in Taiwan" to "people living in the ROC". The Qing rule and Japanese rule were to Taiwan, not to the ROC. The ROC's history only started from 1912. When Taiwan was ruled by the Qing and then ceded to Japan, the ROC hadn't even been founded. It's meaningless to do this discussion if some keep thinking Taiwan and the ROC is one thing. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read the discussion yet? Language is flexible and determined by how people use it. Clearly the people who merged Taiwan and ROC articles think they are the same. Szqecs (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I browsed the discussion but didn't read it carefully. Of course they thought Taiwan and the ROC are the same, and that's what I'm trying to clarify. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to clarify if that's how people use the language. We can wait for further discussion, but know that there has been a consensus before and I don't think your argument is compelling enough to split it again. Szqecs (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't absolutely mean the use of the language is correct, does it? It's discussible. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just wrong to call this article "Taiwan" while it's actually about the current government mixed with history that has nothing to do with it. Moreover, "Taiwan" is an island in every sense. The informal usage shouldn't have any weight. The Republic of China is currently prevented from declearing formal independence due to its fears, so the name "Taiwan" can't appear in international organizations either. It's not an abbreviation like names used for other countries and most importantly, it exlcudes parts of Fujian governed by the Republic of China. --2.245.77.140 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the Wikipedia guidelines: WP:UCRN. Szqecs (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016
Change some wrong descriptions. Please change "Taiwan (Listeni/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/), officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia. Neighboring states include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the west, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south. Taiwan is the most populous non-UN state and the largest economy outside the UN." to "Taiwan (Listeni/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/), is a region in East Asia. Neighboring states include Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south. Taiwan is the most populous non-UN region and the largest economy outside the UN." Because Taiwan is not a state. The 1992 Consensus have made it clear that there's only one China, both mainland China and Taiwan belong to the same China. So we should call Taiwan as a region.

DennyLiZhiyuan (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌. Please provide reliable sources that support your change. GABgab 14:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

First sentence
The first sentence is highly problematic from a NPOV perspective. It explicitly calls Taiwan a "state", which directly contradicts a later statement in the article, saying "[i]nternationally, there is controversy on whether the ROC still exists as a state or a defunct state per international law due to the loss of membership/recognition in the United Nations and lack of wide diplomatic recognition." Also, it equates the Republic of China with "Taiwan", which overlooks islands such as Kinmen and Matsu. Furtermore, it refers to the PRC as a "neighboring state", even though the ROC does not recognize the PRC as a different country (the main reason being that this would imply Taiwanese independence, which would provoke a strong reaction from Beijing, perhaps war). This is why I suggest the following, more neutral wording:

''The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, is a state with limited recognition in East Asia, covering the islands of Taiwan and Penghu, as well as Kinmen and Matsu Islands just off the coast of mainland China, and several islands in the South China Sea. Since the retreat of the Kuomintang to Taiwan in 1949, the legal and political status of Taiwan has been contested.''

I am glad to hear what you think about it. De wafelenbak (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree on two points: the article name is "Taiwan," so leading with "The Republic of China" doesn't make sense; the limited recognition doesn't deserve placement in the first sentence, as if it were the most important thing about Taiwan. I feel it's adequately covered in the 4th paragraph of the lead, and in the "Political and legal status" section. See also previous discussions in the talk archives. Phlar (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your first point. As far as I know, there is no policy restricting how the leading should start. And there have been articles whose leading start with official, long names rather than unofficial names, such as articles United States and United Kingdom. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Both of those are still closely related to the title. Szqecs (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether they are closely related to the title or not, they write the official names first and then the informal names. Right? --Matt Smith (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The meaning of a word depends on how people use it. BBC calls Taiwan a country. Taiwan is listed under countries in the CIA World Factbook, as do countless publications. If people use it to refer to ROC, which includes Kinmen and Matsu, who are you to say it's incorrect? Szqecs (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is true that countless publications refer to Taiwan as a country. However, "country" is a more generic term, whereas "state" (or "sovereign state") is a legal term. For example, Scotland is called a country of the UK, but it is certainly not a sovereign state. The fact that most publications in the popular media do not take these subtle differences into account should not be a reason for an encyclopedia not to use a more exact use of language.
 * In general, it is a problem that this article does not differentiate between Taiwan and the Republic of China, while including the ROC's history from 1949 on; especially in the first decades, Taipei was rather the representative of "Free China", hoping to retake the Mainland. I understand that the article's title is "Taiwan", and not "Republic of China" (though other Wikipedias do it that way), as this name is indeed better known. However, the status of the ROC should be clear from the first paragraph on.
 * To compare with: Kosovo is recognized as a sovereign state by 109 out of 193 UN member states, yet in its first paragraph on Wikipedia, it is referred to as a "disputed territory and partially recognised state". The State of Palestine is recognized by 136 UN member states, and its first paragraph refers to it as "a de jure sovereign state in the Middle East that is recognized by 136 UN members and since 2012 has a status of a non-member observer state in the United Nations – which amounts to a de facto, or implicit, recognition of statehood." This makes clear that, if one would call Taiwan a "state with limited recognition" or even simply a "de facto independent state" (de iure would be difficult to prove, as it is not a UN member state), the matter of statehood should be discussed in the first sentence. De wafelenbak (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the sources Szqecs cited at here use the word "country", I propose that the leading use the word "country" instead of "state". --Matt Smith (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * However, "country" is a more generic term, whereas "state" (or "sovereign state") is a legal term. 1: States do not have to be sovereign states. 2: I have no problem with using "country", but when I brought this up last time people wanted to use states. It's in archive 24. The fact that most publications in the popular media do not take these subtle differences into account should not be a reason for an encyclopedia not to use a more exact use of language. Content on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. By all means go find a reliable source that says ROC is a country in East Asia and cite it. If you think Taiwan should be introduced separately, by all means go write it on Island of Taiwan Kosovo is recognized as a sovereign state by 109 out of 193 UN member states, yet in its first paragraph on Wikipedia, it is referred to as a "disputed territory and partially recognised state". The State of Palestine is recognized by 136 UN member states, and its first paragraph refers to it as "a de jure sovereign state in the Middle East... I don't think they should be called disputed territories or partially recognised states. Technically China and South Korea are disputed territories and partially recognised states as well. It's just pointless. The first paragraph already says it's a non-UN state. Is that not enough? Szqecs (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sidenote:

For example, Scotland is called a country of the UK, but it is certainly not a sovereign state. Exactly. California is a state of the US, but it is certainly not a sovereign state. I'm sure you thought of this? Szqecs (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The consensus in Archive 24 was to use either "state" or "country." I'm fine with switching to "country." Phlar (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Szqecs, the consensus at the last discussion with this title was 'to use "state" without link'. Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Events in the infobox
The events in the infobox should be significant events in the history of the country. The first event should be the proclamation of the republic in 1912, not the foundation of the Xia or Qin dynasties. Also, the surrender of the Japanese government on Taiwan to ROC forces in 1945 is clearly an important milestone on the way to the current state of the country, certainly much more so than the "1992 Consensus". Kanguole 22:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to assert this situation, the Republic of China is actually the successor and the sole heir to the Qing dynasty (1644-1912) and also held the Treaty of Nanking. When they gained Taiwan in 1945 from the Empire of Japan, it was placed under ROC military occupation but the Chinese Civil War saw the ROC fled to Taiwan (which was still Japanese territory) and became "government-in-exile" before the treaties had to be signed. Japan eventually relinquished Taiwan and its surrounding islands in 1952. And on top of that, the ROC WAS the founding member of the United Nations until Albania proposed to the UN to have Chinese Communists join the UN so as a result, the Chinese Nationalist have been ousted from the UN and its organs. The 1992 Consensus agreed that both PRC and ROC are one nation called "China". Wrestlingring (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * None of that justifies including events from the history of China prior to the founding of the republic. Nor have you said why the 1992 Consensus should be considered one of the key events of its history.  Kanguole 00:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify the sovereignty status of the island of Taiwan, in 1945, Japanese forces on Taiwan surrendered to the whole body of Allies of World War II, not to the ROC. The ROC, which accepted the surrender of Japanese forces on Taiwan, was merely a representative of the whole body of Allies of World War II. The ROC did not gain Taiwan in 1945.
 * In my opinion, the relocation of the ROC government to Taipei is the milestone on the way to the current status of the polity. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed the flight to Taipei is a watershed, which should definitely be included: the ROC was transformed into a state controlling only Taiwan and a few much smaller islands. But this would not have been possible without the ROC taking control of Taiwan in 1945.  Thus that event is also a key milestone on the way to the country as it exists now.  Kanguole 00:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For now, I have no opinion about whether the ROC taking control of Taiwan in 1945 should be added into the event list or not. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Capital
Is the capital Nanjing? That contradicts with the Taipei Times source link. Szqecs (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The following sources refer to Taipei as the capital of Taiwan in recent reports: Standard, Strait Times and BBC . Former president Ma also stated that the capital is Taipei. Sources of claims or proposals of Nanjing as the capital are all over 2 years old. Szqecs (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In your recent edit, the link you wrote explained clearly. A Ministry of Education document sent to schools in 2013 identified Nanjing as the capital, but Taiwan’s interior minister was latter forced to reaffirm to the legislature that “since Taipei is the seat of our central government, it is our nation’s capital.” Therefore the capital should still be Taipei. Szqecs (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, the Constitution of the Republic of China asserts that Nanjing is technically the capital of the ROC in accordance to this blog: [https://howitallstarteden.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/our-countrys-capitol-is-nanjing-what-our-your-whose-country/ “Our Country’s Capitol is Nanjing”…what? Our…Your…Whose Country? - How it all Started] Wrestlingring (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An obscure blog entry from 2013 is not a reliable source. Please cite something more reliable to support your claim that Nanjing is the capital. Szqecs cited 6 sources that identify Taipei as the capital. The sixth, which was apparently originally provided by you, even claims that "the current constitution of Republic of China...does not indicate where the capital is." Phlar (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The Taipei Times articles used as references for this claim actually contradict it.  Kanguole 09:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I could find no mention of "Nanjing" or the location of the capital anywhere in the Constitution. I'm going to remove the Nanjing claims from the article. Phlar (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's de jure capital of Taiwan but Taipei is de facto capital of Taiwan. Bnicol.farbin (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Under what law is Nanjing the "de jure" Capital? I found no mention of it in the English version of the ROC constitution I referenced above. Phlar (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"Sovereign state"
Someone added the term "sovereign state" to this article, and then someone else removed it, technically the Republic of China is a sovereign state, and though it has limited recognition there is nothing judicially or legislative that the Chinese Republic doesn't have that Red China does have. To deny the Republic of China it's sovereign status violates the WP:NPOV as it can be seen as either pro-Socialist (claiming that the People's Republic of China is the only legitimate Chinese government) or pro-Taiwanese independence (as they don't recognise the sovereign rule of the Republic of China over Taiwan, and rather subscribe to the idea that the Republic of China illegally occupies and "oppresses" Taiwan), neither stance can be either seen as realistic (as not only the Republic of China government having more legitimacy because it's elected, and this also negates the argument that Taiwan is somehow "oppressed") and there also doesn't seem tứ be a source that claims that the Republic of China is not a sovereign state.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The phrase "sovereign state" appears once in the lead and four more times in the body of the article. If you're proposing to add "sovereign state" to the first sentence, please scroll up on this page to the section "First sentence," and see also the most recent consensus in Archive 24. Phlar (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Calling it a "state" is not denying its sovereign status. According to the state (polity) article and basic grammar, states can be sovereign or not. That ambiguity is makes it neutral. Also you can't write something just because there isn't a source that denies it. There's no source that says Scarlet Johansson isn't my mistress so let's add that to her page. Szqecs (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Relations with the PRC
Apologies if this is not how things are correctly suggested - would suggest adding a wikipedia link to the phrase "de jure" for convenience. There is another instance of it in the "National Identity" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcanavan (talk • contribs) 14:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Taiwanese Imperial Japan Serviceman
I would suggest two changes:

First: In the "History" section, under the Heading: "Japanese Rule", towards the bottom, changing:

"tens of thousands" to "hundreds of thousands"

who served in the Imperial Japan forces during WWII.

Second: Adding a link to the WIKI page "Taiwanese Imperial Japan Serviceman", which gives an excellent account of these soldiers and sailors, as well as the evolving thinking of the Japanese authorities on the nature of Taiwanese involvement in their military.

The end of the article also discusses the effect that losing the war had on those who were in Japanese military service, as the Nationalist government discriminated against them after the island was returned to Chinese control in 1945.

If you go to the WIKI page "Taiwanese Imperial Japan Serviceman", you will see that just over 200,000 Taiwanese volunteered or were drafted into the Imperial Japanese armed forces, with the volunteers starting in 1937. It also details what happened after the War when they returned to Taiwan.

All-in-all, information worthy of this section of the WIKI page dealing with Taiwan in general! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.88.40.169 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The sentences I removed
"For millennia, China's political system was based on hereditary monarchies known as dynasties. Since 221, when the Qin Dynasty first conquered several states to form a Chinese empire, the state has expanded, fractured and reformed numerous times." I still fail to see how this is so relevant to Taiwanese history that it belongs in the lead.--Khajidha (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this doesn't belong here, as discussed in the section above. Kanguole 15:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, we did not and still haven't had a consensus in the section above. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are failing to see how that paragraph is so relevant to the history of the Republic of China because you are misled by the current article title. This article talks about polity Republic of China, which is being nicknamed as Taiwan for some political reason. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm failing to see it because you have not tied it to anything around it. It just sits there. There is already mention of the dynasties in the very next paragraph, putting them into perspective with how they affect Taiwan. This sentence makes no more sense here than would a random sentence about how "For centuries Europe was ruled by the Roman Empire" in the intro to basically every European country article. --Khajidha (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The history of China is linked to the Republic of China. That is not hard to understand. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And it is already mentioned in the next paragraph. This paragraph ties into nothing.--Khajidha (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there ANYBODY here besides Matt Smith who doesn't think we have consensus to remove this paragraph?--Khajidha (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is reached through discussing, not through asking a question like that. Please read policy Consensus. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You had the discussion. No one (aside from a self-professed vandal) agreed with you. --Khajidha (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide a tenable reason in the discussion rather than just saying something like "I don't agree with you". --Matt Smith (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See my previous reply "you have not tied it to anything around it. It just sits there. There is already mention of the dynasties in the very next paragraph, putting them into perspective with how they affect Taiwan. This sentence makes no more sense here than would a random sentence about how "For centuries Europe was ruled by the Roman Empire" in the intro to basically every European country article. " --Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which topic do you think the article is about, Republic of China, or Taiwan Island? (My opinion is written in the end of previous topic). --逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about the modern state of Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China and located on the island of Taiwan and some minor surrounding islands. --Khajidha (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention that the Republic of China was widely recognized as China and it still claims to represent China.
 * The Republic of China had never regarded itself as Taiwan, instead, it regards itself as China. You apparently didn't know that fact. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Know it. It's just not relevant. The history of China before Taiwan became part of China in the first place is of minor importance to this article, it's not appropriate for the lead. --Khajidha (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are still being misled by the current article title "Taiwan". I suggest that you stop using the word "Taiwan" and use "Republic of China" instead otherwise you would keep getting lost. The article title should have been "Republic of China", but some editors thought it would be confused with "People's Republic of China" so they chose the word "Taiwan".
 * This article talks about polity "Republic of China", and the history of China is relevant to the Republic of China. That fact itself has nothing to do with geographical entity Taiwan (island). --Matt Smith (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken about the reason the article was renamed. It was because "Taiwan" is the common name of the country.  This notion of an abstract country separate from its territory and population is not the common view.  Kanguole 16:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See my previous reply The history of China is linked to the Republic of China. That is not hard to understand. It's inappropriate to remove content (the history of China) which is linked to the article (the Republic of China). --Matt Smith (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Matt, the point is that this paragraph doesn't belong *in the lead*, not that it doesn't belong in the article at all. If there were another section in this article where it would fit, it would have been moved there. But this article contains no section about "the history of China in general," so there's no place for this paragraph. Phlar (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic of the article itself, the Republic of China, already makes this paragraph belong in the lead. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And this paragraph is talking about a time before China had expanded to Taiwan. It is no more relevant to the intro of this article than a discussion of the American Revolutionary War would be to the Hawaii article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you are being misled by the current article title "Taiwan", which is merely used to nickname polity "Republic of China".
 * The history of China is relevant to the Republic of China. Plain and simple. That fact itself has nothing to do with China had once expanded to geographical entity Taiwan (island). --Matt Smith (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Chinese history before China came to Taiwan and the history before the ROC/PRC split is found in the China article or the Chinese civilization article. I believe we can confidently state that the consensus exists and is against your position. --Khajidha (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That does not mean those histories are not relevant to the Republic of China and should not be in this article. Judging from your previous comments, I believe we can confidently state that your consensus is being misled by the current article title "Taiwan". --Matt Smith (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They still aren't relevant enough to be in the lead. You have yet to address the parallels I have given. You wouldn't start an article on Hawaii by talking about the Revolutionary War, why would you start an article on Taiwan with dynasties that existed before Taiwan was Chinese?--Khajidha (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging from the "parallels" you have given, you are still being misled by the current article title "Taiwan". Those "parallels" aren't actually parallels because their cases are different. Article Hawaii is not for polity "United States of America" so we of course wouldn't start that article by talking about the American Revolutionary War.
 * On the other hand, I would like to correct my position. After reevaluating this matter by checking the Chinese version (中華民國) of this article, I found that this paragraph really does not fit in the lead. Even the Chinese version, which is much more accurate than this confusing English version, focuses only on the history of the polity itself (1912 - today). So it looks like there really is no need to put this paragraph in the lead of this article. I was too eager to emphasize the connection between China and the Republic of China and thus forgot to evaluate this matter carefully. Therefore that was my problem. I apologize for that.
 * Finally, I would like to remind some editors again that how you have been judging this matter is largely misled by the current article title "Taiwan". Keeping emphasizing things like "...... China had expanded to Taiwan", "......with dynasties that existed before Taiwan was Chinese", ...... etc, shows that you are mistakenly thinking this article is for geographical entity Taiwan (island) and whether this paragraph fits in the lead or not depends on the history of geographical entity Taiwan (island). In other words, you have been evaluating this matter by mistakenly using History of Taiwan rather than by correctly using History of the Republic of China. As I mentioned before, this article is for polity the Republic of China, and the article title should have been "Republic of China". I suggest that you at this talk page stop saying "Taiwan" and say "Republic of China" instead so that you won't keep getting confused. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment
I have no idea if I am following the correct procedure here, but here goes.

It is proposed that the paragraph "For millennia, China's political system was based on hereditary monarchies known as dynasties. Since 221 BC, when the Qin Dynasty first conquered several states to form a Chinese empire, the state has expanded, fractured and reformed numerous times." is not relevant enough to the subject of this article to deserve a position in the lead of this article.


 * Support as nominator. --Khajidha (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, and similarly events relating to the Xia and Qin dynasties do not belong in the infobox. Kanguole 17:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There could be a case for a very short subsection of History summarizing Republic of China (1912–49), but not the whole of Chinese history. Kanguole 11:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support That paragraph was so completely disconnected from everything around it. A strange inclusion, good removal. I haven't touched Qin, but I'm removing Xia. It's not only before the establishment of China, but there's no evidence it even existed. CMD (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It doesn't belong in the lead. It could fit in the History section, but not without rewriting the section to accommodate it. Phlar (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support It's too distant. Szqecs (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing from the infobox
To explain why I added Xia history on the infobox and the quote above (which it disappeared, Taiwan (ROC) shares the same history as China (PRC) since both countries are still on the frozen conflict. This Republic of China, the article here, is actually the successor state to the Qing dynasty (along with the other dynasties in the mainland China) still continues to exist after losing the Mainland in 1949 in the island of Taiwan (which at that time was still Japanese territory before relinquishing the rights in 1952).

I would also consider Taiwan and China are just the same country as One China per the 1992 Consensus.

If you guys want, you may want to read the other articles here to refer to this issue here: One-China policy, Two Chinas, One Country on Each Side, History of China, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, China and the United Nations, Chinese Civil War and Political status of Taiwan.

- Wrestlingring (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * None of this makes Xia less mythical. You may want to read Xia dynasty. CMD (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please accept the fact that many of us have read all of those articles and do understand the situation quite well but, nevertheless, still feel that information on the ancient history of China does not belong in the lead of this article. You might disagree with me, but acting like the merits of your POV should be obvious to anyone who's read up on the issues does nothing to convince me. Phlar (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is more convenient to leave the pre-1949 history in the History of China article and have this article focus on history since that time.--Khajidha (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Error references 18 and 218
Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Geography of Taiwan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: This discussion has been closed. Steel1943  (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Closing this WP:SNOW-covered situation. After merging the two discussions together, it seems clear that the only and clearest way to form consensus at this point would be for a brand new discussion to be started that has both move requests grouped together. Looking through the discussion, it seems rather clear that the moves themselves, as it stands, if the discussions were closed today, would be either "not moved" or "no consensus to move" closes. With that being said, I was originally considering starting a brand new move request after closing this one, but due to the current state of the discussions, I'm going to refrain from doing so. Wrestlingring, if you have the desire to start another move request, please follow the directions at Requested moves to list both pages in the same discussion to avoid split/fragmented discussion threads as what happened below. ''Note: I have replaced the headers in this section with bolded header text with anchors so that the table of contents on this talk page is no longer cluttered. (Section redirects in the edit histories should still function as intended.)'' (non-admin closure)  Steel1943  (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

– Because this political entity continues to exist after losing the mainland in 1949, it's better to use the ROC and PRC references since they are the same country. Wrestlingring (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Taiwan → Republic of China
 * Geography of Taiwan → Taiwan
 * This rationale pertains to the "Taiwan → Republic of China" move request. Steel1943  (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merged the move request for Geography of Taiwan → Taiwan here. Steel1943  (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Rationale for Geography of Taiwan → Taiwan

Geography of Taiwan → Taiwan – I'm proposing the idea to rename this article Taiwan to allow the main article to be renamed as the "Republic of China" which controls this island. Wrestlingring (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey moved from Talk:Geography of Taiwan


 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support. This geographical entity is the actual Taiwan. However, "Taiwan" being used as the informal nickname of political entity the Republic of China has been causing confusions between it and the actual Taiwan for a long time. The confusion needs to go away. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Provided that content is split from Taiwan so that this article is not just about the geography. Taiwan is not a political entity, no, I do not recognize the PRC's claims, but the Republic of China is the state, "Taiwan" is a neutral name that is acceptable from both sides of the strait. Thus calling "Taiwan" a state is not NPOV for the PRC sees it as a sign of splitting its, no, I repeat, I do not support the PRC at all, but I also respect Wikipedia policies. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, but prefer Taiwan Island, so as to differentiate clearly between the state entity commonly called "Taiwan" and the geographical entity. The RoC and Taiwan are not the same thing. The present situation is horribly confusing. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is currently a proposal for redirect of Taiwan to Republic of China. So this article's title can simply be "Taiwan". --Matt Smith (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose if a person types "Taiwan" they most likely want to learn about politics, people and culture, and not mountains, fauna, and rivers which this article covers. Timmyshin (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, ditto: if a person types "Taiwan" they most likely want to learn about politics, people and culture In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The search term Formosa should remain as the title. Taiwan or ROC are political entities recently created in the long history of Formosa. 108.31.224.101 (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As a country article, Taiwan needs a Geography of Taiwan sub-article to summarize in its Geography section (cf WP:COUNTRIES), and this is approximately it.  In other cases where almost all of the territory of a state is an island of the same name, e.g. Iceland, Madagascar, Cuba, Jamaica, we don't have separate articles for the state and the island, presumably because that would lead to too much duplication.  All we need to do is tweak the description in the first paragraph, to include the other 1% of the state.  Kanguole 11:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose. Taiwan is the common name of the country. It is also the name for the geographical entity, but the country is overwhelmingly what it is used for.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 11:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose These RMs are badly formatted because they had not been combined and risk contradictory outcomes. Timrollpickering 12:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current article at Taiwan is the primary topic, not this. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Survey before merging Talk:Geography of Taiwan here
 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. "Taiwan" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. "Taiwan" being used as the informal nickname of political entity the Republic of China has been causing confusions between it and geographical entity Taiwan (island), which is the actual Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and also support merging Republic of China (1912–49) into Republic of China. They are not entirely synonymous as it has not always been the case, the RoC has existed since 1912 and ruled the mainland before 1949. Taiwan is not a political entity, no, I do not recognize the PRC's claims, but the Republic of China is the state, "Taiwan" is a neutral name that is acceptable from both sides of the strait. Thus calling "Taiwan" a state is not NPOV for the PRC sees it as a sign of splitting its, no, I repeat, I do not support the PRC at all, but I also respect Wikipedia policies. The ROC is also not just Taiwan, people seem to forget about Quemoy and Matsu as they are technically not part of Taiwan the island. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The WP:MOS recommends The Chicago Manual of Style, which in turn recommends The World Factbook (CMOS, 8.43). This reference gives only "Taiwan" -- and does not mention ROC at all. Now that Taiwan has a pro-independence president, this type of move is even harder to justify. Pandas and people (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason that the World Factbook uses "Taiwan" is that the US does not recognize the ROC as an independent state, and thus the US prefers the name. To say that the ROC, or Taiwan, if you really prefer has a "pro-independence president" is not accurate, Tsai has not once suggested anything close to declaring independence since she came to power. In fact, she has explicitly asked the "mainland authorities" to recognize the existence of the ROC. That's not even close to being pro-independece. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Common Name is Taiwan, end of story. --GeicoHen (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per all the comments about common name and the usage from notable authorities like the CMOS and World Factbook. --Khajidha (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The common name of the country is Taiwan. It's true that government sources (like the World Factbook) have to follow the official line, but others don't, and yet almost any English-language source uses Taiwan.  Kanguole 10:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose not a valid rationale by any criteria of this encyclopaedia. The common name, and the only name most people know it by, is Taiwan. Moving it would just result in confusion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 11:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Taiwan" is the common name of the country. We also have South Korea, despite the official naming being Republic of Korea. — Micromesistius (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose It took years to undo the mess and confusion caused by structuring the articles as though it was the 1950s US State Department. Let's not go back to that ghastly combination of names and merges. It's 2016 and the WP:COMMONNAME is Taiwan. Timrollpickering 12:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Survey (after merged move request)
 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose (again?) The hatting of the earlier discussion makes it utterly unclear if those comments have been struck out en mass so in the event that we're all required to restate this AGAIN: Oppose It took years to undo the mess and confusion caused by structuring the articles as though it was the 1950s US State Department. Let's not go back to that ghastly combination of names and merges. It's 2016 and the WP:COMMONNAME is Taiwan. Timrollpickering 12:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions about how to further clean up this discussion merge? I agree with your initial comments that this discussion should not have occurred on multiple talk pages, thus why I merged them. This editor who started these discussions created quite a few such fragmented discussions in a short period of time; unfortunately, this group already had a lot of participation prior to the discussion merge. That, and my intent with collapsing the discussions above was never to discount the comments, but rather make it clear that they do not specifically pertain to the merged discussion since they were made prior to the discussions being merged. Steel1943  (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How to clean it up. Call it a snow close, archive this, set a moratorium of 5 years on such discussions.--Khajidha (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't say I agree with WP:SNOW-closing this. Per the section I moved here from Talk:Geography of Taiwan, this wouldn't be a clear WP:SNOW close. Steel1943  (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just came up with a plan on this. Will try to execute in the next few minutes. Steel1943  (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Close this mess. I would probably have gone for Oppose in both of the original discussions, but I did not participate due to the confusing de-centralized chaos of multiple parallell discussions. At least some of the move proposals have now been closed, moved and collected, but it is too late! --T*U (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah a WP:SNOW close is probably the best way to put this whole thing out of its misery. Timrollpickering 21:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Discussion moved from Talk:Geography of Taiwan


 * Taiwan, is ONLY one of the several islands like Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and the rump Fujian Province that is controlled by the ROC, NOT Taiwan, which is never a name of the country. 135.23.144.153 (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion before merging Talk:Geography of Taiwan here
 * Since the One-China policy is an issue, the Republic of China ONLY controls Taiwan, Penghu, Matsu, Kinmen and the rump Fujian but still, the ROC is the continuation of the 1912 Republic that ruled the mainland until it fled into exile in 1949. Think Estonia and the Baltics occupied by the Soviet Union, they are also the continuation of the 1918-40 states and the ROC didn't even recognized Latvia as part of the USSR. Any questions? 135.23.144.153 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion (after merged move request)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capital of the ROC Question
According to the BBC Article here, it clearly states that Taipei, is never the permanent capital of the Republic of China, but a temporary provisional capital. Nanjing is actually the official capital of China (ROC) per the Ministry of Education of the ROC even though the PRC occupied it. Discussions are welcome. Wrestlingring (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not a BBC article, and it does not say that Taipei is a temporary provisional capital. It does say, regarding the MOE letter: "Taiwan's interior minister was latter forced to reaffirm to the legislature that 'since Taipei is the seat of our central government, it is our nation's capital.'"  Kanguole 22:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Contemporaneous reporting of the minister's statement (and apology from MOE):
 * Kanguole 11:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Taipei is the capital, as discussed (and agreed?) three months ago. See Archive 24. Phlar (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just sent an email to the ROC Foreign Affairs Ministry the other day, who will be forwarding it to the ROC Ministry of Interior when I receive it to clarify the capital of the ROC at the moment. Wrestlingring (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Taipei is the capital, as discussed (and agreed?) three months ago. See Archive 24. Phlar (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just sent an email to the ROC Foreign Affairs Ministry the other day, who will be forwarding it to the ROC Ministry of Interior when I receive it to clarify the capital of the ROC at the moment. Wrestlingring (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

But still, even in accordance to the article 4 of the constitution of the Republic of China: "The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." So this refers to another question, which meant in the article 4 stipulated that the ROC still claims the territories of the PRC-controlled Mainland China and Hainan, apart from the territories of Taiwan, small portions of Fujian Province, Matsu, Penghu, Kinmen and some areas near the South China Sea. 135.23.144.167 (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The "fact" that Nanjing is the official ("de jure") capital of the Taiwan/RoC is widespread on Wikipedia, often supported by a claim that this is "according to the constitution". As an example, see List of national capitals in alphabetical order. But neither Nanjing nor the word "capital" is mentioned in the English version of the constitution, as can be seen here. My question then is: Is there anything at all to support the claim of Nanjing as an "official" capital? If not, we have some clean-up to do! --T*U (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The story that the constitution names Nanjing as the capital appears to have originated with a circular to schools on 2 December 2013. Shortly afterwards the interior minister confirmed that the constitution does not name the capital, and that the capital is Taipei; an MoE official apologized for the circular.  The news articles linked above have the story.  So yes, there is some cleanup to do.  Kanguole 23:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

More fragmented discussions
In addition to the Requested move discussion(s) above (Taiwan → Republic of China, Geography of Taiwan → Taiwan) and the long row of other connected, but separately listed China/Taiwan-related Requested move-suggestions from the same proposer (China → People's Republic of China, China (disambiguation) → China, Politics of China → Politics of the People's Republic of China, Flag of China → Flag of the People's Republic of China; I may have missed some...) there is also a merge suggestion that went under my radar for some time. The suggested merger is from Republic of China (1912–49) to Taiwan. The normal procedure would be to have the discussion here at Talk:Taiwan, and if you click on "discuss" in the merge banner template on either page, you are taken here. But the merge discussion is instead located at Talk:Republic of China (1912–49). In addition, the merge suggestion has also been added to the Proposed mergers, so there are actually two discussions, but not in the place you would expect... --T*U (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)