Talk:Taiwan

Template:VA

Future, based on recent China RM

Now that the PRC article occupies the title of "China", I think we need to consider how it affects this page as well and/or the Taiwan article.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it changes much with regards to this page or Taiwan. It did come up quite a bit during the RM for the PRC article and China that the ROC and Taiwan articles ought to be merged, but that was not dealt with there, as it is a separate issue. There was considerable support for the idea but I caution anyone who wishes to initiate such a merge proposal here to evaluate the likelihood of gaining consensus before acting, last time it was proposed it was soundly defeated. These articles have issues which are not identical to the PRC and China although there are strong parrallels with regards to WP:COMMONNAME. The most important difference is that Taiwan is an island with an obvious geographical boundary. The ROC is a political entity with a territory which is not the same as the boundaries of that island. Personally, I think COMMONNAME is a little more important than the technical distinction I just described, but the issue is not as uncomplicated as some have made it out to be. COMMONNAME is important in this case because the "Republic of China" is an much much less familiar term than the People's Republic of China. Readers not already familiar with the subject are extremely unlikely to know to search for "Republic of China" instead of "Taiwan". WP:AT policy states clearly that we use the common name for things as used in English and the recent PRC move demonstrates that we still think that's important, but please let's not think of that as binding precedent. We should discuss WP policy and guidelines,the ROC and Taiwan, and the needs of readers looking for general information on those topics and not simply try to extend the RM affecting PRC and China to include these two pages.

It was also suggested that an article Republic of China (1912-1949) be split off from this one and there was considerable support, without strong opposition. That would allow the current ROC article to avoid being so historical and more focused on the current state, so that it is never ambiguous to the reader that the ROC (Taiwan) does exist today. Perhaps we should consider whether we want to do that first, as it was not very controversial when discussed there. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 20:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to split off ROC (1912-1949). It is just part of the history of the state and what makes it unique. Splitting it makes sense only if we consider ROC a defunct state, which is debatable. Besides ROC article has been a Good Article for a while now and splitting it may compromise its quality. ROC is an article about a state, covering all of its changes. If the consensus is still to split, maybe a more appropriate name for the "ROC (1912-1949)" article would be "History of ROC (1912-1949)". By analogy, the US doesn't have a separate article for each major period, ie, US (13 colonies), US(1776-1861), US (1865-present). etc. - Mistakefinder (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would also be opposed to a clean split. I used the word "split" above but that was somewhat careless. It seems most reasonable that a separate article should exist for 1912-1949 and this article be left mostly intact. The point is not to exclude material from before 1949 but rather to have the article clearly focus on the ROC which exists today, the one often called "Taiwan". Partly this is to have an article which fits into a "History of China" without it being mostly about Taiwan. That is confusing to say the least. That article could be called "History of ROC (1912-1949)" but the "History" is unneccessarily specific, generally article title policy is to keep it simple unless some extra disambiguation is necessary to avoid confusion. "1912-1949" is clearly about history so we didn't label it as history. To be clear I support including pre-1949 history in the history section of this article, but since there's a whole article devoted to that era, it should be a little bit more summary-style, leaving the history section with somewhat more emphasis on post-1949 history. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 05:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not (seriously) proposing this in any way, but would a disambiguation after "Taiwan" fix the issue of WP:COMMONNAME, e.g. "Taiwan (state)" and "Taiwan (island)"? If you do any search in the news about Taiwan and the Republic of China, the ROC is always referred to as "Taiwan"; any search for "Republic of China" always refers to the People's Republic of China. -Multivariable (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the current situation is not ideal, because folks looking searching Taiwan are presumably looking for the topic covered by this article. The problem with the above (not serious) proposal is that the article ROC is not just about the state with its capital in Taipei, its also about a regime which governed the mainland prior to 1949 and whose capital was... well that's kind of complicated. So calling the article "Taiwan (state)" would conflict with this other related topic that doesn't have much to do with Taiwan. Splitting off some of the historical content into a separate pre-1949 article would be helpful. On this article we'd just have summary of that article in the History section with a Main template at the top of the section. That would make dealing with the remaining ROC (Taiwan) and Taiwan (island) articles much more straight-forward. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 01:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I started Republic of China (1912-1949) with the relevant content from this article. Trim 1912-1949 information in this article (there's actually not that much) at your discretion. Quigley (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Good move. I think a Main article link and a brief summary of 1912-1949 history is a better choice than eliminating all mention of the ROC history prior to 1949. The idea is just to have the article focus on the state as it is today so focusing the history on 1949-present, but it does no harm to include some of that prior history and there's some continuity that has to be addressed so treating 1912-1949 history like an unrelated subject is at best confusing. I'll see what I can do to push the section in that direction. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the year 1949 provides a clean break as far as the geography of the entity goes, but we also have to keep in mind that from 1912 there was no single unified political entity spanning the entire period. So geographically, we can divide the periods into 1912-1949 and 1949-present, but politically, we have several distinct entities:

• Provisional Government of the Republic of China (1912)
• Beiyang Government (1912-1929)
• Nationalist Government (1927-1948) and Government of the Republic of China (1948-present) - these two are politically continuous
  • Reformed Government of the Republic of China (1938-1940), Provisional Government of the Republic of China (1937-1940) and Reorganized National Government of China (1940-1945)

Minor fixes above were made by User:Benlisquare at 09:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice that the geography and the polity do not align, and that some of these historical government articles are already treated in Wikipedia as historical states. So I think the Republic of China (1912-1949) article, especially by looking at its infobox, is historically misleading and inaccurate (it lists Nanjing as the capital, which was only true from 1928-1937;1945-1949). So what is the precedent in dealing with countries without a unified central authority and simultaneous rival governments?--Jiang (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The current Republic of China (1912-1949) article is new and by no means comprehensive; if you want to improve the information about the capitals and other things, you are welcome to do it. There is no requirement that I know of for a government to have a "unified central authority" and no "simultaneous rival governments" to have an article on Wikipedia: these things can just be described in the article text. Quigley (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if anyone knows of the precedents. If someone wants to link to the historical ROC, why not just link to history of the Republic of China or one of the political entity articles linked above? This new article might turn out to be redundant.--Jiang (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are definitely uses for a separate 1912-1949 article. One is in {{WW2InfoBox}}, which previously linked to Republic of China, likely leading readers to believe that Taiwan was fighting for the Allies! The history article is about broad history, but this new article is an overview of a (relatively) clearly defined state and time. Quigley (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't we have to link to the same article under both the allies and the belligerents? We should create an article on the Nationalist Government and link to that instead.--Jiang (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm all fine with creating a Nationalist Government article, but then what do we do with Republic of China? What happens to that article - do we centre it along the current state governing Taiwan? Also, the title "Nationalist" Government may not be quite descriptive enough - Nationalist of what? There were "Nationalist" Governments in Italy, Austria and South America as well. Surely "Kuomintang Government" and "Nationalist Government of China" would be valid alternatives? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The PRC/China article includes a description of the history of the 1912-1949 ROC government because that government was the predecessor of the PRC. To put it another way, the China article talks about the history of the area regardless of what government was in power, and it doesn't ignore everything prior to 1949 just because the PRC didn't exist yet. A Taiwan article should do the same thing. It should recognize that the ROC is the current government and that the ROC is one of the meanings people have when they say "Taiwan". However, when the article goes into history it should stick with the history of Taiwan rather than the government.

However, there should be a place where all of the ROC history is tied together, including the evolution of the government and the continuity of major actors.

So we have a "Taiwan" article with the government box to the right that gives the official name "Republic of China" with the flag and stats and such. The history prior to 1945 talks about the history of Taiwan rather than the history of the ROC (but with a kindly pointer saying "for history of the ROC prior to 1945, see..."). This article will cover all of the things traditional covered by such an article. For deeper information about government things it will provide references to articles about the ROC. For deeper information about everything else it will have pointers to articles about Taiwan.

And we have a "Republic of China" article that in more detail on the government and it's history including the time it spent on the other side of the strait. For detailed history it will also provide a links to the 1912-1949 ROC article.

This will have the ROC history covered like this: 1 detailed article on 1912-1949 ROC history. 1 detailed article on 1945 to present ROC or Taiwan history. An overview of 1912 to 1949 history in the "China" article. A second overview of 1912 to 1949 history in the "Republic of China" article. An overview of the 1945 to present ROC history in the "Taiwan" article. A second overview of the 1945 to present ROC history in the "Republic of China" article. As a alternative naming, we could have a "Nationalist Government" page and have "Republic of China" redirect to "Taiwan" or to "Nationalist Government". Readin (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Or a DAB. We don't necessarily have to redirect to one or the other, especially since ROC can refer to either of the two. Though, I personally would prefer it if an actual article existed at ROC, as opposed to a DAB or a redirect. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I'd like to retain a "Republic of China" article, I'm not to sure about having a "Nationalist Government" article about the present ROC would be a good thing. As it stands, I like this present article as it is.--Tærkast (Discuss) 13:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We already have a history of the Republic of China article.

The Nationalist Government was legally replaced with the Government of the Republic of China under the 1948 Constitution, so that article would not discuss post-1948 history. American diplomatic sources refer to it as the "National Government of the Republic of China".--Jiang (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the Republic of China (1912-1949) is very clear and all set. I am not sure what to do with the general Republic of China if we are supposed to be permanently calling it Taiwan. It seems to contradict again. Benjwong (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Republic of China could re-direct to Taiwan and the Taiwan article could have a hatnote saying where the full History of Republic of China can be found. I could be something like "Republic of China redirects here - for the article focusing on the Republic of China prior to 1949 including those features that survived after the capital was moved to Taiwan, see History of the Republic of China". Or perhaps we could rename the History of Republic of China to be Republic of China with explanatory hatnotes on both that article and the Taiwan article. Readin (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be in the business of creating new countries or deleting ones that exist. This concept is ridiculous - since when does Wikipedia have a say in redefining what "China" is? Go to Taiwan, the government and the flag are all Republic of China. Furthermore, Taiwan is not the only island governed by RoC. The Republic of China is still the heart of true Chinese culture, which has been systematically destroyed since the communists usurped the mainland territory. Chinese culture flourished in Taiwan ever since 1950s when PRC was in the business of destroying Chinese culture. If the people representing the best of Chinese culture today are not part of China, who is? 67.174.85.140 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Again these comments are too late. I was fighting this for the longest time and not enough people came to help. It made more sense to have left China at the crossroad of ROC/PRC. But now that PRC is moved to China. It is very difficult to go back and refer ROC as China anymore. The first reality is that Taiwan is calling itself Taiwan more and more everyday (even if it holds true Chinese culture). The second reality is that the current pan-blue administration also call itself Taiwan more than China. I agree with Readin with moving on to "Taiwan (ROC)", "Taiwan (state)" or Taiwan. Benjwong (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the arrangements, there should be a topical Republic of China (on its entirety) to cover the instances where we must refer to both the pre-1949 and post-1949 ROC. "Taiwan (ROC)" uses an intialism that most readers would fail to recognize while "Taiwan (state)" runs into NPOV problems in defining Taiwan as a state. I could foresee moving the country template to Republic of China (Taiwan) and have Republic of China be a topical + historical article (move History of the Republic of China over?) without the country template attached. Under this arrangement, where there is a topical and historical Republic of China article, I don't see the need for the Republic of China (1912-1949) article - instead, there should be historical countries template articles made separately for the Beiyang Government and the Nationalist Government.--Jiang (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

this seems reasonable. Legally, Taiwan is not a country, it's a landmass (and an administrative region). Shouldn't Wikipedia stick to the laws of the different parties? It's not like there is any legal difference, regardless if you are communist, blue party, green party. None say there is a legally declared state called Taiwan. Why should there be any dispute... 67.174.85.140 (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a law book whose intention is to report on laws. Wikipedia is tasked with providing accurate information based on reliable sources. laws are written for political purposes, not for providing reliable information. The legal situation should be described because it is relevant and useful information, but it is not the only relevant and useful information and it is not an unbiased source of anything except for information about the law itself.Readin (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is never too late to correct a mistake. Wikipedia will only lose credibility for capitulating to cultural imperialism instead of being purely factual. The beauty of something like Wikipedia is it usually sticks to the facts, even in a world where the facts are not popular. That's why its especially a shame when Wikipedia allows itself to make such an egregious error. Even separating Republic of China to two articles seems questionable to me, though it is not completely ludicrous and sad, and flying in the face of facts, such as this change is. 67.174.85.140 (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Benjwong, that is a good point but it is fallacious reasoning. Pan-blue leaders use the term 'Taiwan' when addressing the nation, but they have not stopped referring to the country as the Republic of China. It's not unlike us referring to the government as "Washington". I know it's not a perfect example, but it is an example of referring to a place where the government is, rather than by the country's name. "RoC" is still all over the news - especially the Chinese-language news - and especially in light of the upcoming centennial. It is on the name of every government form. It seems dubious at best that we just assume the country is known as Taiwan when the only place Taiwan appears in official documents is as a state. One can simply look at the license plates in Taiwan that say "Taiwan Province", or look at the money which says "Republic of China".... 67.174.85.140 (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:NationalPalaceMuseum.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NationalPalaceMuseum.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Republic of China → Government of Taiwan

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Withdrawn. Nominator noted snow fail. (non-admin closure) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Republic of China → Government of Taiwan – I know that this is a very sensitive issue, but I think this is a compromise that both sides of the China dispute can live with. For the PRC-haters, we aren't saying that ROC and Taiwan are identical, just that the ROC happens to govern Taiwan. For PRC-non-haters, we have a title that reflects common usage and doesn't confuse readers who aren't familiar with the whole PRC/ROC political situation. I don't mean to piss anyone off with this, I'm hoping that this will be viewed as a reasonable compromise. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an article about the country Taiwan/Republic of China, not just its government. I think the proposed title is very confusing as it isn't clear at all from it that this article is about a country. Seeing that title you might as well be lead to think the subject of the article is the same as Government of the Republic of China, which it isn't. This is not a title which reflects common usage, I don't think I have ever seen an English-language source which refers to this country as "Government of Taiwan". If we are going to try to get "Taiwan" into the title of the article, this is about the worst solution I have seen yet.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Government of Taiwan" gets 330,000 Google results. Among its users are the ROC's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the New York Times, and Manila's Sun Star. "Republic of China", the current title, does not reflect common usage at all. Common usage would dictate something like "Taiwan (country)" as opposed to "Taiwan (island)". The idea that we shouldn't suggest that "ROC and Taiwan are identical" is a great concession to an extreme minority viewpoint. Quigley (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I think you sometimes have to be a bit cautious about how you use Google search results. None of the search results or the links you provided are actually referring to country itself when they are saying "Government of Taiwan", rather they are referring to the government of the country. And again, this isn't an article just about the country's government, but rather about it's the country in general. I'm not against getting "Taiwan" into the title of this article, I just don't think this is the way to do it at all.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per The Freeloader. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Clarification My intention is that this article gets narrowed to be only about the Republic of China and not about Taiwan at any other time. The ROC article as it stands now is already 90% about government and politics, so it wouldn't be much of a change, and not much would have to move. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that this article only is about politics at the moment. And even if it is, it does not help just narrow the scope of the article. Wikipedia needs to have an article on the country of Taiwan. It's an absolutely unacceptable idea that we should just drop having an article about any country, and certainly one which is among the 10,000 most important subjects in the encyclopedia. If this article is skewed towards politics, it should be fixed by adding more content about other aspects of the country (and the article should probably also lose the designation as a good article then). TheFreeloader (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia does have an article about Taiwan - it's called Taiwan. Everything is already there except for its government. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
      • That is supposed to be the article about the island of Taiwan, not the country. If you want to have the article about the country be named "Taiwan", then this is definitely the wrong way to go about that. At best this is a very misleading way of doing it. I don't see this move having a snowballs chance in hell of going through, and I do wish you would consider retracting your move request, so as not to waste people's time and patience with this subject. I don't think it will improve this article's chances of eventually getting renamed to have this move request discussion go through its full duration. You could file a new move request which actually reflects your desire to rename the article about the country to "Taiwan" afterwards, although I think some people who are for the renaming of these articles would like to see other possibilities explored further first.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Regardless of whether Taiwan = the ROC, "Government of Taiwan" is a rather abnormal title for the current article's subject matter. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per The Freeloader. This is political correctness without a coherent rationale. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: This article is about the country not just the government. The title "Government of Taiwan" doesn't accurately describe what this article is about. The title "Government of Taiwan" also suggests that the article talks about the actual government of Taiwan and it suggests that it only presents information on single aspect of a country, the government. Sections such as Demographics or Economy would not be included. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Taiwan is a province inside the Republic of China. The two topics are not equivalent. Further, there is more than one provice still (partially) under the control of Taipei. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Taiwan was only a province "inside" the Republic of China historically. Taiwan Province was abolished in 1994, and Taiwan's subdivisions are treated as top-level divisions now. Quigley (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Taiwan" does not have a government, unless you're referring to the provincial council. The political entity governing Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, the Dongsha and Taiping islands has a government, and that political entity is called the Republic of China. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's an interesting, if unusual, proposal. Where would you have Republic of China direct? —  AjaxSmack  06:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • French Wikipedia has an elegant solution to the ROC naming problem. Republic of China is a disambiguation page with the options of Republic of China (1912-1949), Republic of China (Taiwan), Republic of China (Nanking) and People's Republic of China. Following that logic, this page should be renamed to Republic of China (Taiwan). Quigley (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Wow! It's beautiful. Too bad we have to continue fighting a 60+year-old conflict on the pages of Wikipedia instead of doing something like that here. —  AjaxSmack  20:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• An interesting approach, but I would have to oppose because this article isn't just about the government, which is what that title would make me suppose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• oppose This article isn't only about the government in it's current status of ruling the country Taiwan,but also about the historical roots in China long before it occupied Taiwan. that's the reason this article is separated from the Taiwan article in the first place. Readin (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as this article's content isn't limited to the government. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per other comments, this article is not limited to a government, but covers the Republic of China in its entirety, including its present status, so that title is quite inappropriate and not really a good compromise IMO.--Tærkast (Discuss) 19:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. All the needed rationale has been said. Now if we could have an administrator to SNOWball close this discussion...  The Tartanator  01:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The article quite rightly traces ROC back to 1912. ch (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Snow Fail As originator, I have no objection to an early close on this. Clearly my proposal sucks balls. (Is there an essay that I could link "sucks balls" to, cause that would be awesome) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, we've all been there before. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Request to merge this with the Taiwan article

Under the Common Name principle, the People's Republic of China was mereged with China. Under the same principle, Taiwan and the Republic of China article should be merged as well, Taiwan is the ROC's common name and what the world over recognizes it as surely as they equate the PRC with China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan is an island, and a geographical location. The ROC is not. The ROC is a geopolitical entity, and Taiwan as an island is not (there is Taiwan Province, but modern-day relevance and significance is quite questionable). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

---Taiwan is common name of the Republic of China. Just as China is the People's Republic of China. I have to question your POV on this one. You're showing some bias. You're splitting hairs on ROC (Taiwan) versus PRC (China). I'm certainly not surprised that your family is from Beijing and that you obviously do not see ROC (Taiwan) as a sovereign state, but an island. No doubt a renegade one that needs to be reunited with the Mainland. Why even have an article that says China? It's no more than a geographical location in Asia. Just call the China article "People's Republic of China". If we are to apply the common name principle to PRC (China), it should be applied equally and fairly to ROC (Taiwan). Anything less would be a biased POV.

Nope. Argue the content, and not ad hominem. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

---Okay: ---Taiwan is common name of the Republic of China. Just as China is the People's Republic of China. Why even have an article that says China? It's no more than a geographical location in Asia. Just call the China article "People's Republic of China". If we are to apply the common name principle to PRC (China), it should be applied equally and fairly to ROC (Taiwan). Anything less would be a biased POV. Even the ROC page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROC shows "Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan)". The common name principal should be applied fairly here and the Taiwan article should be merged with the ROC article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.144 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Supplemental: The CIA World Factbook calls it Taiwan: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html Encyclopedia Britannica calls it Taiwan: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/580902/Taiwan. And many more that shows that this article should be merged with the Taiwan article.

Is Kinmen, Matsu and Taiping Island located within Taiwan? In 1927, was Beijing located within Taiwan? Has Sun Yat-sen, the first president of the ROC, ever been to the Japanese colony of Taiwan? In 1942, was Taiwan an Allied belligerent or an Axis belligerent? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This move request is premature. First, we need to rename this article to something like "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to avoid irrelevant arguments about the Republic of China (1912–1949). Then we can discuss a move to "Taiwan". Taiwan is also an island, and the article for the island would be "Taiwan (island)". Quigley (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The ROC includes more than Taiwan, it also includes Kinmen Matsu and many other islands outside the Taiwan Area. The RoC post-Oct1949 also had control of everything south the Yangtze, of which the government was located at Guangzhou, later moved to Chongqing on 14 October, then Chengdu 30 November. Government was not moved to Taipei until 12 December, more than 2 months after 1 October. Hainan and Dachen islands remained under RoC control until 1950 and 1955 respectively, not to mention the various ROC enclaves in the mainland which were not all lost until the 1960s. If you want to split at October 1949, then you've to allow all of these post Oct1949 possessions into account. Liu Tao (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

While history does get mentioned in the article, the main article's for history are History of Taiwan and History of ROC. The fact that Taiwan controlled parts of mainland China for a short time period 50 years ago shouldn't be a major consideration for an article that is concerned mainly with the present. Readin (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious about these enclaves that existed until the 1960s. I don't see any mention of it in the History of Republic of China article. I would like to know more. Readin (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Two articles that deal with this are Kuomintang Islamic insurgency in China (1950–1958) and Campaign at the China–Burma Border. However, I would liken these cases to that of Hiroo Onoda, "a former Japanese army intelligence officer who fought in World War II and did not surrender until 1974, having spent almost 30 years holding out in the Philippines." Quigley (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a rename of this article would actually be a merger with the Taiwan article, and I think discussion of such a merger needs to consider the larger picture of Taiwan's history as a country (in the sense of an area with a people and a separate history from other areas) and the history of the ROC as it existed both in mainland China and in Taiwan. Ill repeat a suggestion I made earlier:

The PRC/China article includes a description of the history of the 1912-1949 ROC government because that government was the predecessor of the PRC. To put it another way, the China article talks about the history of the area regardless of what government was in power, and it doesn't ignore everything prior to 1949 just because the PRC didn't exist yet. A Taiwan article should do the same thing. It should recognize that the ROC is the current government and that the ROC is one of the meanings people have when they say "Taiwan". However, when the article goes into history it should stick with the history of Taiwan rather than the government.

However, there should be a place where all of the ROC history is tied together, including the evolution of the government and the continuity of major actors.

So we have a "Taiwan" article with the government box to the right that gives the official name "Republic of China" with the flag and stats and such. The history prior to 1945 talks about the history of Taiwan rather than the history of the ROC (but with a kindly pointer saying "for history of the ROC prior to 1945, see..."). This article will cover all of the things traditional covered by such an article. For deeper information about government things it will provide references to articles about the ROC. For deeper information about everything else it will have pointers to articles about Taiwan.

And we have a "Republic of China" article that in more detail on the government and it's history including the time it spent on the other side of the strait. For detailed history it will also provide a links to the 1912-1949 ROC article.

This will have the ROC history covered like this: 1 detailed article on 1912-1949 ROC history. 1 detailed article on 1945 to present ROC or Taiwan history. An overview of 1912 to 1949 history in the "China" article. A second overview of 1912 to 1949 history in the "Republic of China" article. An overview of the 1945 to present ROC history in the "Taiwan" article. A second overview of the 1945 to present ROC history in the "Republic of China" article. As a alternative naming, we could have a "Nationalist Government" page and have "Republic of China" redirect to "Taiwan" or to "Nationalist Government".

I notice I left out a "History of Republica of China" article. I think it makes sense to have as an overview that links to main articles. Readin (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a sensible organization of the articles. Readers generally want - and Wikipedia generally gives - a history of the area, and not a history of the regime. Quigley (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The current status of a "Republic of China" existing and a "People's Republic of China" standalone article no longer existing is very inconsistent. Benjwong (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. Unfortunately, when it was brought up during the requested move of PRC to "China", that was considered irrelevant.--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Conducting a news search on "Republic of China" yields news on the PRC: http://www.google.com/#q=republic+of+china+news&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=aQK8Tp7_Bcnm0QGG2_nABA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CBQQ_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=63e300433d59130&biw=1280&bih=846 Conducting a news search on "Taiwan" yields news on Taiwan: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=taiwan+news&pbx=1&oq=taiwan+news&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=44832l45440l2l45596l6l4l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=63e300433d59130&biw=1280&bih=846 Why is it only Wikipedia is out of step with the current world reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't conducted your search properly. A search for ［"Republic of China" -People's］ would have been more appropriate. Remember that Google is a conglomeration of software running on a series of computers, not a mind-reading human. You either do it properly, or you won't get what you want. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of China encompasses more than just the island of Taiwan, which is the reality of the situation, just that Taiwan has become a common name for the ROC now. See WP:NC-TW for current practice. If Wikipedia reflected "reality", then Burma would be at Myanmar. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If "China" can be used as the common name of the People's Republic of China's article, why cannot "Taiwan" be used as the common name of the Republic of China? Where's the consistency here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Consistency was conisidered irrelevant in that controversial move, for some reason. I think the status quo will remain until a new requested move for Taiwan and the ROC.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we were to follow your idea that the ROC is more than just the island of Taiwan, then the "China" article should revert back to show the PRC AND the ROC; "China" is more than the Mainland and the PRC, it is also Taiwan, Matsu, Kinmen, etc and the ROC. Again, where's the consistency here? The entire thing was extremely poorly thought out by people who are obviously not well versed on this topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I was one of those who actually opposed the move, and I still disagree with it. There was quite a lot of discussion in the move. You bring up valid points, it does leave us with now "China (PRC)" and "Republic of China". This issue will have to be sorted out sooner or later.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The French Republic includes both France and Corsica, yet the article for it is France. The Italizn Republic includes Italy, Sicily and Sardinia, yet the article for it is Italy. The PRC includes China and Tibet, yet the article for it is China. The Kingdom of Spain includes Spain and the Balearic islands, but the article for it is Spain. It is entirely natural and consistent that the article for the Taiwan and the state that currently governs Taiwan, Kinmen and Matsu would be called "Taiwan". Readin (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your argument about Taiwan, but your conception of a "China" that excludes "Tibet" is misleading. Taiwan, as an island, has clear and static boundaries: China, by contrast, has always referred to the land that the current Chinese government occupied, which often included Tibet and does now. Same goes for Spain, Italy, and France: it would be more precise to say that the Italy includes the Italian Peninsula, Sicily, and Sardinia. Quigley (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure I'll say that it was poorly thought out per se. The issue goes back quite a while actually, and I do respect the admins for making the decision.--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

definition of a "country" under the Montevideo Convention

The article says "The ROC is the only state in the world that meets the definition of a "country" under the Montevideo Convention (...)" I'm not a lawyer but is the ROC really the only state in the world that fulfills the said criteria? Are there really no others that fulfill them too? Something seems a bit strange here. ViennaUK (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the point of that sentence was to say that the ROC was the "only state" that both meets the criteria and does not have UN membership, but that's not true either. I have removed the sentence. Quigley (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Republic of China → Taiwan

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to support move at this time. Although slight, the discussion leans towards oppose. Thanks for the civil interatctions. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Republic of China → Taiwan

• Taiwan → Taiwan (island)

- The previous request to move this article to Taiwan failed, as the petitioner failed to argue the case thoroughly. It's time to try again. Crispus (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering that now the People's Republic of China is under China, the time has come. This article must now be moved to Taiwan. Why? There are several reasons.

1. It is the most common name. Most English speakers are confused by the term Republic of China. Taiwan is equally accurate a descriptor, yet far more understood.
2. It avoids confusion. First, this article easily confuses those people who are not familiar with the fact that the government currently in Taiwan used to control most of the Mainland. In addition, now that the page previously at the People's Republic of China is at China, many people will now confuse the pages "China" and "Republic of China."
3. It provides symmetry and consistency. China and Taiwan. With Republic of China redirecting to Taiwan, and People's Republic of China redirecting to China. Much clearer.
4. It clarifies the purpose of the article. Right now, the article is trying to be both a historical article, about the rule on the mainland, but also a political article about the present state. The result is a mess. Much of the material covered in the history section is also covered in the China article.

To address several potential rebuttals:

1. "This title isn't neutral": When people say Taiwan, they mean the government that resides there, and the people. The common name for that political body is Taiwan. Saying so isn't biased. It's just what it is. Remember, that neutrality must be balanced with clarity. And even if this title were slightly biased, this title is also far more clear.
2. "Taiwan is the island, so there's too much confusion, as the government controls several other islands!" The Taiwanese government does control several islands besides Taiwan, including the Pescadores, Matsu, and Kinmen, so confusion could potentially arise. However, this issue has been dealt with before many times. See Malta v. Malta Island, Hawaii v. Hawaii (island), Orkney v. Mainland, Orkney, etc. Considering the naming confusions which already exist, this concern is minor. The article for Taiwan could be moved to Taiwan island, as the island would be specified using this name in English, much like 台湾岛 is used in Chinese. Then that article could be adjusted accordingly.
3. "This isn't what Chinese people call it." This isn't Chinese Wikipedia. This is English Wikipedia. In English, Taiwan usually refers to the autonomous semi-recognized state. Period. And keeping it at Republic of China, when you already have the PRC at China, only adds to the confusion. Furthermore, many major news sources, including the New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera use the name Taiwan, as well.

For all these reasons, I feel that this article must be moved to Taiwan, instead of staying at Republic of China.Crispus (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you plan to move the article currently titled Taiwan to.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be moved to Taiwan Island.Crispus (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So in the Kinmen and Liangchang county article. You are going to write, they are controlled by Taiwan? Um, its not as simple as comparing with other situations e.g. Malta or Cyprus. Taiwan never had control of the islands, its the ROC which has controlled. In historical context, its going to muck up more articles. More inconsistencies than worth the hassle to correct the name. Unless you got a better way to deal with this. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 07:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. 119.237.249.129 (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If the ROC government is referred to as the Taiwanese government, which it is in English, then Taiwan does control these islands. And the articles are already mucked up, so that's no big problem. 72.145.232.33 (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Sun Yat-sen, the first president of the ROC, has never ever been to Taiwan in his entire life. Beijing, the first capital of the ROC during the Beiyang Government era, is not located in Taiwan, and neither is Nanjing, the capital during the KMT era. The Nanking Massacre, one of the ROC's darkest points in history, did not occur on the island of Taiwan. Taiwan was an Axis belligerent (Empire of Japan), and not an Allied belligerent during World War II. Similar anachronisms have already been mentioned ad nauseam, just look for all of my earlier posts within the talk page archives. I'm not going to dig them up all over again. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen, Beiyang, and Nanjing wouldn't have to be mentioned in the article at all. The history section of this article would be replaced by "History of Taiwan," instead. Therefore, your argument is irrelevent.Crispus (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it is relevant.

Taiwan was governed by the Japanese

Chiang moved his government, intact to Taiwan

The ROC on Taiwan has developed differently, but still the same government

Academic sources related to China and China specialist sources clearly disambiguate

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A good comparison for this issue would be to the Byzantine Empire. Yes, the Byzantines might have claimed to their dying day to be Romans, but in English, they are thought of as a distinct state, despite the government staying the same. Just because Augustus never travelled to Byzantium is no reason for their not the be a separate article for the Byzantines, focusing on the territory they controlled.Crispus (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Byzantine empire has a far longer history than the ROC. And this is a division western historians do make. People who study China do not conflate ROC with Taiwan. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should put it this way: yes, moving the article to Taiwan will mean that there will have to be substantial overhaul of this article. But it is evident from merge that is currently requested that an overhaul is needed, anyway. Crispus (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support: I made similar comments over at Talk:Republic of China (1912-1949). There is only ONE scenario where ROC pre-1949 is the same as post-1949. That is the scenario where everyone agrees ROC is still China and has been continuously going for 100 years. After years of discussion and debate, I couldn't convince enough people that was true. In fact overwhelming number of people like Metallunchbox, Quigley, Benlisquare and many others said that PRC is China. That the ROC is just a left-over regime, 99% of the people call PRC China, even the UN doesn't recognize Taiwan, the island is just a province etc. All these comments are legit. Either ROC is still China or not, that last vote said it loud and clear... it is not. We moved PRC -> China. Now we need to move ROC -> Taiwan to avoid any more inconsistencies. Benjwong (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Chicago Manual of Style recommends the the CIA's World Factbook as the source "for country names" (§8.43). This site gives the name of the subject as "Taiwan." So do Britannica and the Associated Press. I would also support Republic of China (Taiwan). This may look like a disambiguated form, but it is in fact a long-form official name used by the Taiwanese foreign ministry. In any event, the current name has a more-Catholic-than-the-pope quality that needs to be fixed. Kauffner (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Except that takes a "Pan-Green" POV as others have said. News organizations want to keep things simple, but an encyclopedia should have more nuance and understanding. Personally I think Wikipedia's practice in regards to names of the ROC and PRC is superior to that of Britannica and Encarta. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • US sources abide by US and UN naming conventions. US and UN do not override RoC law inside of Taiwan (or any other RoC territory) TruthAndHonestyFirst (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Because of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. government is quite particular about giving the name of this country as "Taiwan." Kauffner (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the Taiwan Relations Act, Taiwan covers only the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores (cf. s.15(2)). In other words it does not cover the Pratas Islands, Wuchiu, Quemoy, the Matsu Islands and Itu Aba. It does not cover the entirety of the modern territorial extent of the Republic of China. 119.237.249.129 (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is how Britannica defines: ' In addition to the main island, the ROC government has jurisdiction over 22 islands in the Taiwan group and 64 islands to the west in the Pescadores archipelago. '. The whole entry makes no mention of Quemoy and Matsu, not to mention Wuchiu, Itu Aba and the Pratas Islands. Reuters likewise does not define Taiwan by geography or territorially. 119.237.249.129 (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Britannica also says, "Quemoy Island, ... island under the jurisdiction of Taiwan." Britannica`s article on Taiwan, as well as the BBC's country profile, both give Ma Ying-jeou as the president. This makes sense only if you equate Taiwan with ROC. Kauffner (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. But I think the article about the island should be moved to Taiwan (island) instead, because I think the island is most often just called "Taiwan", and not "Taiwan Island". And in that event Wikipedia usually indicates what isn't part of the common name for a subject, but rather a disambiguation term, with a parenthesis. I also think this move will require that some of the pre-1949 content in this article gets pruned and moved to other articles.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Bad argument, since "Taiwan" clearly refers to an area which was not always under RoC control - we can still refer to the territory without referring to its current government. Moreover, Taiwan is one of several landmasses and provinces in the (current) RoC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthAndHonestyFirst (talk • contribs) 04:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The name "Taiwan" can refer to both a country/autonomous region and an island, just like "Australia" refers to both a country and a landmass. And I think in the case of Taiwan, like in the case of Australia, the country is the primary topic over the landmass. I think people are much more likely to be looking for the country of Taiwan than the island Taiwan when they type in "Taiwan" in the search field.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, As far as Taiwan being moved to either Taiwan (island) or Taiwan Island, I think that when a speaker is trying to clarify that he means the island, and not the country, he (or she) would say Taiwan Island. That's just my two cents. But if that article move occurs, the whole Taiwan (island) v. Taiwan Island debate will be a pretty minor issue.

  As for the other issue, pruning out all of the pre-1949 material is one of the key reasons why Republic of China needs to become Taiwan, as that would provide clarity. Crispus (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, and thank you for one of the clearest and most persuasive RM proposals I've ever read, and I've read quite a few! In short, I'm convinced that "Taiwan" is the most common name for the topic of this article, and that ROC, while arguably more technically correct, is less commonly used and so more confusing. Setting it up with ROC redirecting to Taiwan, and the existing article Taiwan about the island being moved to Taiwan Island (or, even better Taiwan (island), per FreeLoader), addresses everything. --Born2cycle 07:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Undecided After reading the article (should have done this first!) and the oppose arguments here, I am changing my vote from Support to Undecided. The proposal seemed clear, but I realize now that that is because it oversimplified the situation. From a historical perspective, the ROC currently has jurisdiction primarily of the territory known as Taiwan, but it's arguably misleading to refer to this nation as Taiwan, even though it is commonly done. This is all very complicated and I feel I've only learned enough to be unqualified to be helpful in this decision. If I learn more, I may change my opinion again, but I urge no one to close this discussion hastily. We owe it to ourselves and our readers to work this out, and this particular discussion is probably as good a place to do that as any. --born2cYcle 21:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just beginning to understand the many things that my request should have covered that I didn't...I'm still fervently behind the movement to change it, of course, but I much more clearly understand more arguments against it, while simultaneously seeing more reasons to support the change. Either way, I'm glad the topic was brought out again, in light of PRC being switched over to China. Crispus (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as per reasons given in nom. Taiwan is certainly the common name for this topic. We should use common name unless we have a good reason not to. The content will need to be adjusted. I also expect that some links will need to be changed to point to History of the Republic of China or the 1912-1949 article for those links where the topic is clearly the ROC prior to it's move to Taiwan. Compare to Australia v. Australia (Continent). I'm impressed that me and Benjwong get to agree on this issue. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 09:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, Another advantage of these moves that I didn't list is that it would provide for the easy merger of History of the Republic of China and History of the Republic of China (1912-1949), as History of Taiwan articles would kick in after 1949. However, as the time from 1898-1945 for Taiwan are covered in the article dealing with it as a Japanese colony, I do wonder what should be done for the four brief years when Taiwan and the mainland of China are unified. Another issue would be where, if at all, to stick in articles about The Republic on the mainland in an article entitled "Taiwan." Just some more things to think about... Crispus (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment notice posted at relevant wikiprojects. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Very well made proposal, including the point 2 for rebuttal. I think some sort of Republic of China article could exist to describe the history of the regime and governmental system (basically what we have in the history section now). As for the note this article would need an overhaul, it wouldn't; just a change to history. Other sections are in the present. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Republic of China cannot be made to redirect to Taiwan. That will cause confusion in pre-1949 references to the ROC many times more so than what is caused with some unfamiliarity with the term Republic of China in the present tense. A Republic of China article simply needs to exist on Wikipedia, and be about the Republic of China in its entirety (1912 to present), whether or not the country template exists on it. Instead, I would support 1) move Republic of China to Republic of China (Taiwan), 2) move History of the Republic of China to Republic of China, and 3) merge Taiwan with Republic of China (Taiwan). Like the China merger where there was no support for a Chinese civilization article, no one really supports this proposal in its entirety; they just support having the country template moved under Taiwan. There is no reason for the "Taiwan (island)" article to exist after the move, so it should not be proposed in the interests of clarity.--Jiang (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So if this page is moved and the redirect is replaced by a history article on the government then this would be a support correct? I said a similar thing just above in my comment. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am neutral as to where the country template should reside, but I oppose turning "Republic of China" into a redirect and having Taiwan moved to Taiwan (island) instead of being merged into this one.--Jiang (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You definitely have have valid points that need to be addressed. As it is, I do think that the term "Republic of China" is an ambiguous term, as much as "Roman Empire might have been an ambiguous term in the Middle Ages, when you had the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire still going by this name, and the old defunct Roman Empire as well. As somebody mentioned earlier in the comments, in French Wikipedia, Republic of China leads to a disambiguation. Perhaps it would be good to have a similar idea for English Wikipedia, so that from that page you could go to Republic of China (1911-1949), Taiwan, or China (as People's Republic of China does include the words "Republic of China" in it). As for needing to have a page that deals with the Republic of China from 1912 to the present, I would have to disagree with you, agains citing the Roman Emipire/ Byzantine Empire as an example where this is not done. Crispus (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are for mutually exclusive concepts - this is not. A disambiguation page would make sense if some Republic of China were established post-1949 with no relation (except in name) with the former, but here, the entity in Taiwan is politically continuous with the entity established under Sun Yat-sen in Guangzhou in the 1920s, even though the geographical boundaries of the state were vastly changed in 1949. It would be more helpful to readers to have content on all five or six competing regimes to sit on the same page. We have the Provisional Government (1912), Beiyang Government (1913-1929), Sun Yat-sen KMT Government (1921-23; reappearing 1925-27) and splitting in 1927 to the Chiang Kai-shek KMT Government (1927-31) and the Hu Hanmin and Wang Jingwei rival KMT governments (1928), with the Japanese supported governments sprouting up in 1937 and under Wang Jingwei in 1941, and finally with the Chiang Kai-shek KMT Government prevailing, and forming a constitutional government that exists to the present day, but governing only a tiny fraction of its original territory. Some of these entities were more historically continuous, or had more recognized or actual authority than others. But the point is, the complexity and political thorniness of the situation is best explained with text, not a disambiguation page that fails to recognize continuity where it exists, and lack of continuity where it does not.

We have already put up a historical country template for the Beiyang Government article. We need a Nationalist Government article to cover the period 1927-1948. Politics and geography do not align: the state was politically extinguished in 1929 but geographically remained the same; it was not politically extinguished in 1949 but geographically extinguished. I proposed earlier on this same page to have historical country templates for these regimes, while having a general overview at the Republic of China article describing the relationship among these competing regimes. In line with this, I would support transforming this article to be solely about post-1949 (and renaming accordingly), rather than attempting to use a country template (which is closely tied to geography) to both the pre and the post 1949 Republic of China. --Jiang (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are to clear up confusion, and they often do have to deal with similar things, such as the "Roman Empire" disambiguation page, which includes multiple regimes that had a continuous rule of the same government. The reason for a disambiguation page would be that the term Republic of China is unclear in English, as even though a modern day state uses this name, the commonly used name is Taiwan, while the historical entity was typically known as the Republic of China, especially during the civil war, to contrast it with the opposing side. Yes, there is continuity in the government that was on the mainland and the government in Taiwan, but that shouldn't keep the state in Taiwan from being known by the name which it most commonly is referred to as in English. The fact that the Republic of China was the same government on the mainland and Taiwan should be addressed, but the fact is that state in Taiwan is no longer most commonly referred to as "Republic of China" in English. Crispus (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to always use the Byzantine Empire as an example. The Yuan Dynasty→Northern Yuan, and Qin (state)→ Qin Dynasty transition also involved the same governments, as Ukhaantu Khan and Qin Shihuang were the leaders during the transition periods. However, there is no article to cover the Yuan dynasty all the way from Genghis Khan to when the Manchus conquered Mongolia, nor is there an article covering the Qin rulers all the way from the foundation of the kingdom to the fall of the first Chinese dynasty. Crispus (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Northern Yuan is indeed covered under the Yuan dynasty article at Yuan_dynasty#Northern_Yuan. This is somewhat how I envision the Republic of China article to be like - less than half the focus should be on Taiwan, but the period from 1949 is surely significant enough to deserve a top-level section on its own. An article is going to be clearer and more informative than a disambiguating list, especially if we leave country template material with the individual regimes, rather than to pretend that there was a single entity from 1912 to 1949 as the newly created Republic of China (1912-1949) misleadingly does. I think history of the Republic of China best approximates this.--Jiang (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't this issue be handled by focusing this article (with title Taiwan and to which Republic of China redirects) primarily on the modern territory, government and culture, and having a hatnote link at the top that says, "Republic of China redirects here. This article is about the modern nation. For earlier references to "Republic of China" see History of The Republic of China", or something to that effect? --Born2cycle 17:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That would theoretically work, but assumes "Republic of China" more commonly prefers to the present rather than the past. I don't think this is true. If it commonly refers to the past, the history article should occupy the main topic space.--Jiang (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang on that one. Saying the Republic of China is unclear, as it refers to either the old historical rule over the mainland, or the present day situation in Taiwan. The article would have to be entitled "History of the Republic of China (1912-1949)."Crispus (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess that the main problem that we've discovered through this highly constructive debate is that there is no term which universally refers to the main government of China from 1912-1949, without having the additional meaning of the present day government in Taiwan. Anybody's thoughts on this issue? Crispus (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be very difficult to make the case that the history of the ROC is the primary topic for ROC. It sounds like Republic of China needs to be dab page, with links to Taiwan and History of the Republic of China or maybe to Republic of China, 1912-1949, or something like that. --Born2cycle 00:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That seems to be the most sensible way to handle things, as it strikes me as the most natural way to reach these topics in the English language. Crispus (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am totally unconvinced that Republic of China should be a disambiguation page. To draw parallels in Chinese history: Han dynasty, Song dynasty, and Yuan dynasty are not disambiguation pages pointing to Eastern Han, Western Han, Northern Song, and Northern Yuan. An article exclusively on the post 1949 should exist (as is proposed in his move proposal), but this does not mean a more general article on the Republic of China should not.--Jiang (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• support. Nothing much to add to the comprehensive nomination, except to note that historical concerns are just that: historical. Article names are based on the common name in use today, and the common name for the ROC today is Taiwan.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Jock Blackburne, a "state" article has to cover the history, otherwise it's not complete. The historical concerns cannot be waved away. The ROC state was founded by Sun Yat-sen, and taken by Chiang, then moved across the strait. There must be a distinction between ROC the state and Taiwan the island. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support: per WP:COMMONNAME. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 17:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Tentative support oppose: I agree that Wikipedia should name its articles according to the most common English usage, and that "Taiwan" is the most common English name for the government that governs the island of Taiwan. The problem with this title is that it is ambiguous, and it doesn't reflect what the Taiwanese government actually calls itself. The best name for this article would be "Taiwan (Republic of China)", which is both unambiguous and an accurate reflection of the Taiwanese government's actual name.Ferox Seneca (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How is the term Taiwan ambiguous? There isn't another Taiwan out there. My main problem with Taiwan (Republic of China) is that it isn't very natural. It is more informative, but I still think that parenthesis in country names should be avoided (with the exception of Georgia). Crispus (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the term "Taiwan" to mean "the government that governs Taiwan" is ambiguous because the term "Taiwan" also refers to a geographical location called "Taiwan" (not "Taiwan island"), whose history is longer, more complicated, and different than the government that now governs Taiwan. It seems potentially confusing to me to have an article named "Taiwan" which refers specifically and only to the government that governs Taiwan, and not to Taiwan-in-general. In Taiwan, the area of Taiwan governed by the Taiwanese government (that is, Taiwan) is most commonly referred to as "Taiwan (ROC)" (isn't that sentence potentially confusing?). Ignoring the perspective of Taiwanese English speakers out-of-hand errs slightly on the side of WP:BIAS.Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just from my experience, every time I've met a person from Taiwan, they said that they were from Taiwan, not the Republic of China. This includes the times I met them in China as well, so they definitely used the term "Taiwan" to distinguish it from China. I can see the potential confusion with the government/geography thing, but here's the way I see it. The article Republic of China is not about the government, it's about the state that is on Taiwan, composed of over 20 million people, who are citizens of the nation. Most of the people in Taiwan are historically from there, and even if the government institutions are originally from elsewhere, the way to refer to the nation in Engish has now switched over to being Taiwan. Crispus (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And every time someone from Hong Kong is asked, they say they are from Hong Kong. Doesn't make Hong Kong any less Chinese. Given the negative connotations given to the PRC, commonly termed "China", especially within the western media, people from Hong Kong and Taiwan are reluctant to associate themselves with melamine milk poisoning, communism, little girls being run over by cars, the whole hubbub in Tibet, and a plethora of other things. See also my earlier post(s) at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 5#Lead section specifically dealing with the issue. What some people might call themselves isn't really that relevant to how we name an article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that many/most Taiwanese English-speakers informally refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan", but it is difficult for me to know whether Taiwanese English-speakers who refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan" reject the idea that the government of Taiwan is called "the Republic of China".

Because this article is on the state that governs Taiwan (versus any other definition of "Taiwan"), I still oppose renaming this article as simply "Taiwan" because neither the Taiwanese government nor any of the nations which are by definition most friendly and sympathetic to Taiwan believe that the name of the Taiwanese government is "Taiwan". Of the twenty-three nations that continue to recognize Taiwan as a fully sovereign nation, all of them recognize the government of "the Republic of China", and zero nations recognize "Taiwan". I agree that "Taiwan" should be present in the the title of this article because Taiwan is informally referred to that way; but, because "Taiwan" is definitely not recognized as the actual name of Taiwan's government by the government of Taiwan or any other government that recognizes the government of Taiwan, I don't believe that the term "Republic of China" should be removed from this article's title.Ferox Seneca (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. No UN member state recognises "Taiwan" as a nation, country or sovereign state; 23 countries (such as the Holy See and a group of Carribean nations) recognise the "Republic of China", and the rest (such as the United States) have either informal relations with "Taiwan, Province of China" (due to the One China policy, however they do not specifically state which "China", i.e. a policy of deliberate ambiguity), or no relations at all (e.g. North Korea, and Middle Eastern nations). Informal relations do not represent official terminology, it is the official relations that count. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. State Department calls it just plain "Taiwan". The U.S. consulate is called the American Institute in Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act says, "the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979." It's not the "Taiwan Province Relations Act", you know. Kauffner (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But the Taiwan Relations Act doesn't cover Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu, Pratas and Itu Aba (cf s.15(2)). In other words Taiwan according to US statute doesn't cover the entirety of the extent of the modern Republic of China. 119.237.249.129 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Taiwan Relations Act does not refer to Taiwan as a country, but an island. Quote (bold for emphasis): "An act to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific and to promote the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, and for other purposes." Note "people on Taiwan" - following standard English grammar, you can put people on an island, but not on a country. You put people in a country. If the act referred to Taiwan as a country, it would have said "people in Taiwan". The phrases "people on China", "people on Russia" and "people on Los Angeles" make no sense; the phrases "people in China", "people in Russia" and "people in Los Angeles" do. Likewise, the phrases "people on New York Island", "people on the Titanic", and "people on the International Space Station" make sense. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly be surprised if Carter's name was ever rendered as "Jimmy" in statute. The AIT's text doesn't mention Carter at all. But it does state state, "the term 'Taiwan' includes, as the context may require, the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores." So Taiwan is defined as a state comprising multiple islands. Kauffner (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"the Pescadores" (i.e. Penghu) is traditionally associated with Taiwan Island. Due to proximity, Penghu and Taiwan were annexed by Japan after the First Sino-Japanese War, and today Penghu County is a subdivision of Taiwan Province; it does not form it's own provincial-level political division. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONAME. AFAIK a common name for 'China from 1912-1949' is 'Nationalist China'. Flamarande (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Nationalist China" is an informal coinage used only by certain sides. The PRC was called "Red China" by the west, and informally "New China" (Xin Zhongguo) by left-wing intellectuals; the Wang Jingwei regime was called "New China" by pro-Japanese collaborationists, and "Hanjian" by the KMT government; those in support of abortion are either "pro-choice" or "anti-life"; those who are economically successful in society are termed "the 1%". "Nationalist China" is by no means a viable title for an article, as it implies a specific viewpoint, and is informal. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd have to agree with Benlisquare on this one. Nationalist China, while a good descriptor, is just not quite article name-worthy...Until we can think up something better, I guess it'll just have to stay at History of the Republic of China 1912-1949. Crispus (talk)

• • I argued that the "Republic of China (1912-1949)" article should not exist because it would spread misconceptions like the one being made here. There were multiple competing regimes in the Republican era from 1912 to 1949, so there should be a general Republic of China article covering the entire historical period, with individual historical country template articles made for the individual regimes. "Nationalist China" refers to the ruling Nationalist Party or Kuomintang, which did not come into power until 1928. We cannot call the Beiyang Government "Nationalist China".--Jiang (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose because the nominator writers that "Sun Yat-sen, Beiyang, and Nanjing wouldn't have to be mentioned in the article at all." Clearly he doesn't know what the ROC is. (Nor the Byzantine empire, for that matter.) Srnec (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Show me where Augustus is mentioned in the Byzantine Empire article. I probably know more about the Byzantines than any healthy person should. If you want dispute facts, then dispute facts. Crispus (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Struck. I took issue with: "the Byzantines might have claimed to their dying day to be Romans, but in English, they are thought of as a distinct state, despite the government staying the same." In good English scholarship you will inevitably find out that the Byzantine empire was just a continuation of the one we all know as Roman. I also took issue with the use of "claimed", as if they weren't Romans just because we don't call them that.

My main concern is that this move will lead to Wikipedia presenting the Republic of China as if there were two of them. For what it's worth, I'm not currently very happy with how sharply we often distinguish Roman and Byzantine, but (i) that is much harder to iron out, because the time period is larger, and (ii) it matters less, because it has very little real world implication. Srnec (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess as a skeptical westerner, I'm just a bit cautious of calling the Byzantines Romans...and Western Europeans (including English speakers) generally seem to have shared that skepticism, hence the popularity of the Hieronymus Wolf's name for Eastern Empire. Yes, there is a problem with splitting the Roman Empire into three articles, being the Roman Empire, Western Roman Empire, and Byzantine Empire, because it makes there seem like there's more of a political split between the different countries than there were. However, much like with Taiwan, even though people recognize the historical link that the Byzantines shared with the lands to the west that they once ruled, the fact is that by ruling over a smaller portion of land, the nations became very different places from where they started, in part because of their new geography. And I would argue in both places that they became different enough states, that they deserve their own articles, with more of a focus on the geography that they controlled after the fall from power. I'm not the happiest about the idea of having to leave off early Republican History if we move the article from Republic of China to Taiwan, but seeing as all those events took place in mainland China, and are covered in the China article, it makes sense that the article for the state which controls Taiwan should instead focus on the history of the geography that it currently controls, but of course containing a good amount of information on how the state came to be in the situation that it is in. Crispus (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME, the name of the government governing the island is Taiwan, not the Republic of China, despite the latter being the official name. Dough4872 00:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There is already an article Taiwan that describes the island, people, and so forth. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In addition, the historical ROC encompassed much territory outside of Taiwan, and ironically, did not include the island. Where would the historical stuff go? Ngchen (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

From the fact that the page is too long, and that there is already controversy regarding the historical ROC material is evidence enough that it is broke, and does need to be fixed. The historical stuff would stay in history articles, as well as be mentioned in China articles. As it is, much of the material mentioned in the history takes place in regions that the ROC hasn't controlled in decades, and neglects the history of Taiwan, the territory it currently does control. Now tell me again it ain't broke. Crispus (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There is also an article History of Taiwan for the history of the island. As a political entity, the Republic of China was/is distinct. Any reader who reads past the first few sentences of either article will know where to turn already. Ngchen (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The point isn't to let readers find out what article they are in after reading a few lines. The point is to have the article at the location where the reader expects it to be. 72.145.232.33 (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And who are we to tell what readers want to read? We are not mind readers, and different people are looking for different things. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not telling readers what they want to read. The simple fact is that Taiwan is the most common name. Period. But I doubt anybody looking for the island of Taiwan is going to be horribly confused by typing in Taiwan and getting the state, instead of the island. Crispus (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well then, how should we deal with the inconsistencies on various articles throughout the project? What is going to happen to Second Sino-Japanese War? What will we be linking to, and what will we write? Obviously the Japanese colony of Taiwan wasn't fighting the Empire of Japan, which would mean a redirect would make the article contradictory. What will happen to 100th Anniversary of the Republic of China? The ROC has only existed on Taiwan for 60 odd years, which would make the contents contradictory. What will happen to Chinese Civil War, Sino-Tibetan War, National Revolutionary Army, Kuomintang Islamic insurgency in China (1950–1958), Ma Clique, Kuomintang, Xikang, Suiyuan, Chiang Kai-shek, Double Ten Day, Xinhai Revolution, Wang Jingwei regime and 1992 Consensus? There are two Irelands, two Ossetias, two Koreas, two Macedonias and two Congos. I don't see how having Two Chinas makes Wikipedia any more inconsistent. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONAME. Unlike the other recent move I am not that passionate, but argument 2 is as persuasive as common name. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Support per WP:COMMONAME. The ROC is commonly refered to as Taiwan. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to giving it a name which is misleading. It wouldn't clarify the purpose of the article at all, it would be giving the article a name which does not reflect the subject of the article. Pi (Talk to me! ) 05:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For comparison, Great Britain is an article about a landmass despite it being used commonly as a synonym for United Kingdom

Also, I think that the CIA world factbook can't be considered a reliable source for this. I don't doubt that it's reliable for many things but considering ROC is a country with which the US has no diplomatic relations due to its complex relationship with PRC it shouldn't be regarded as reliable for choosing ROC/Taiwan's name

On a further point, as for the problem of their being two Chinas, we have two Congos and it doesn't seem to be a problem

• Support per WP:COMMONAME. Taiwan is also known as Republic of China. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Also known as" (informally at least), but not "is". Claiming that the ROC is Taiwan is a Pan-Green standpoint, and is a heavily partisan standpoint (see Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China, a controversial theory proposed by former ROC president Chen Shui-bian). Per WP:NPOV, we at Wikipedia cannot select either of the Pan-Green or Pan-Blue standpoints, let alone the standpoints of the PRC/CPC, as valid truth; we can only acknowledge such standpoints exist. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: The history of Republic of China during 1912 to 1945 definitely has no relation to Taiwan. -- Kevinhksouth (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - due to the fact the ROC still controls Kinmen and Lienchiang County which are technically part of Fujian province. Now if the supposed change to the ROC article to Taiwan went ahead, this means these articles are controlled by Taiwan the geographical entity. Um, No, its controlled by the ROC which is physically the government on Taiwan island and surrounding islands. More incline to support move to Taiwan ROC or ROC Taiwan.--Visik (Chinwag Podium) 06:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. 119.237.249.129 (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The example of Australia and Australia (continent) is a good one I think. If we do this, then like the Australia (continent) article the Taiwan (island) article should be pretty short and focused squarely on the physical geography. The history, demographics, economy, culture, etc. should all be merged with the ROC article to create the new Taiwan article. Jiang made a good point earlier about needing a place where all of ROC history can be considered together, but I don't see why a History of Republic of China won't meet that need. Readin (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This country has its pre-1945 history totally outside of and irrelevant to the island of Taiwan (and its associated islands and islets), and even after 1949 it still contains islands that are never considered part of Taiwan and neither geographically nor geologically relevant to Taiwan (namely, Kinmen, the Matsu Islands, Wuchiu, the Pratas Islands and Itu Aba, and Hainan till 1950, the Tachen Islands till 1955, as well as landlocked territories bordering northern Burma way into the 1950s). These territories aren't culturally, linguistically or historically relevant to Taiwan. You don't call the Channel Islands as part of Great Britain (no matter the island or the country). It's as wrong as renaming the articles for the Netherlands as Holland, the article for the Soviet Union as Russia, the article for the UK as England, or the article for Germany as Prussia.
  Furthermore, this proposal violates the Wikipedia jus cogens of neutral point of view (aka NPOV). Even if this proposal had a majority of support votes it cannot proceed, since NPOV is one of the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia. NPOV is non-derogable. 119.237.249.129 (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Taiwan cannot be directly equated with the ROC, de jure or de facto. De jure, and the ROC is all of China, and that the mainland is merely undergoing a "communist rebellion" (this is the viewpoint of the KMT). De facto, and Taiwan is the main island of Taiwan Province, one of two provinces of the Free Area of the Republic of China (the other is Fujian Province, Republic of China), "Free Area" distinguishing the territories occupied, controlled and administered by the ROC government from those controlled by the CPC. How both the PRC and ROC interpret the cross-strait issue varies on each side, as affirmed by the 1992 Consensus. Cross-strait relations as whole is a quite complex situation, and cannot be overly simplified by merely stating that ROC = Taiwan. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This does not change the fact that the ROC is referred to as Taiwan by most English speaking sources, including all major Newspaper organizations. The name ROC just isn't the favored name. Crispus (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and can afford to be more technical than your ordinary newspaper source that is written for the uninformed masses. I mean for Christ sake, most newspapers call Steve Jobs an innovator in regards to the early Apple computers such as the Apple II, even though he stole all his code from Wozniak in his early days. I've even read articles on the CNN website confusing nuclear fission for nuclear fusion, claiming that "fusion" had occurred during the Fukushima nuclear plant accident early this year. (If that had happened, then mankind won't have to drill for oil for the next 30,000 years.) I find it difficult to trust anything written by someone with a degree in journalism, and not a more technical degree, and you can call me elitist if you wish. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

English names often aren't technical, they simply are what they are. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

But in this case the English name "Taiwan" as applied to the ROC is a simplification. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - For reasons mentioned by other opposers, and by myself mentioned in the PRC - China move, which I also opposed. I cannot support a move at this time, although I can see the reasoning behind it.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, mainly concerning about NPOV. --DS - fax 11:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • moreover, as Tærkast mentioned, what about People's Republic of China => China, and China => China (whatever something)? --DS - fax 11:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • People's Republic of China (the old article) and China were merged. The original plan was to move China to Chinese civilization (see this discussion), but it was decided by editors that all the information could be merged into one article, as there was considerable overlap in repetitive information. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I see. So why not merge French Fifth Republic to France? --DS - fax 12:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Don't ask me, I was opposed to the PRC/China move. I think that everything done so far doesn't make logical sense, and I preferred how things were earlier. As for this ROC article, I prefer the status quo as it is the least controversial, and gives less problems to deal with. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: It's completely no necessary. Taiwan is a place name, and Republic of China is a name of Country. Bigmorr *More Infomation 11:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. What is needed is a reorganisation of the articles. It seems to me that we need a series of articles:
  • Taiwan for the post-1949 political entity. This should briefly summarise the 1911-1949 history with a "main article" link to the main history article (see below)
  • Taiwan island or Taiwan (island) (I'm neutral about which) for the physical geography of the island.
  • History of the Republic of China for the historical overview of the political entity (1911-present), with a top-level section or sub article about the 1911-1949 political entity
  • Republic of China as a disambiguation page between the articles on the political entity with this name, the PRC and any other relevant articles.
  • Taiwan (disambiguation) as present but updated to the new article organisation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose:Is there a really reason to change those name? How about doing this:
  • Republic of China->now Taiwan government + brief history.
  • Taiwan island->(It's okay for me to change} for the physical geography of the island.
  • History of the Republic of China->only historical contents of ROC.
  • Taiwan->disambiguation page between political and geographic factors.
  • Taiwan (disambiguation)->redirect to Taiwan.
• By the way, please be remember this article -> Taiwan Province and those little island (land also) nearby.
• It seems that what I have done is giving comment, here the reason why I oppose it.
  • Kinmen, which belongs to Fujian Province, ROC. What should I say about? Hum, what I heard is->It belongs to Taiwan government. Who would say it belongs to Taiwan? Someone may get confused with Taiwan Province(and Taiwan government,if you have already made confused).
    • In a nutshell-> Easily confused. If you said disambiguate pages, well, which one is easier?
  • Overkill change.
    • It's that needed to move History of the Republic of China to History of Taiwan later?
• Err, Thryduulf, is that needed for you to change the link from Twaiwan island to Taiwan island?
  • Sorry, that was a typo, now fixed. As a very minor point, if the dab page were moved as you propose then Taiwan (disambiguation) would be retained as a redirect per WP:INTDABLINK and for attribution purposes rather than being deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I just change it...It should be better nowJustincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Gee. Just neglect my grammatical error(s). Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 13:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "for the post-1949 political entity. This should briefly summarise the 1911-1949 history with a "main article" link to the main history article (see below)" - But it's the same one as the pre-1949 entity. Chiang and his toadies merely moved across the strait! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Please use the official name--Jason222333 (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)— Jason222333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. 119.237.249.129 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - It is beyond any reasonable doubt that "Taiwan" is the common name of the country whose capital is Taipei. I'm also pretty sure that most of the people typing "Taiwan" will look for general information about the country (like Italy, Switzerland or every other country article) and not just about one island only. mgeo talk 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • But it's not that simple. "Taiwan" used to have its capital in Nanjing, and it didn't use to control Taiwan at all. At the time Taiwan was held by the Japanese. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I know it's not simple. Actually the question here is how we name the (modern) country article and whatever the result of this RM there'll still be separate articles about the history of the ROC and Taiwan (island) and I don't think it will be really difficult to summarize the essential aspects of both in the Taiwan (country) article. This will allow the readers to find general information about the country (such as the capital city, the GDP...) without having to understand all the complexity of its history. mgeo talk 13:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose - As said, Republic of China is a government which has remained as such. You must consider past AND present, AND consider what the Chinese consider to be NPOV.
• Firstly using the name "Taiwan" is a POV in and of itself. English sources may not realize it, but when considering the Chinese point of views, using "Taiwan" to refer to the government may give the connotation Taiwan is not a part of China while the Ma government of the ROC and the PRC government insist that Taiwan is a part of China. There are "pro-Taiwan" people on the island that want to say "Taiwan is not a part of China" - The best thing to do is to use the official name.
• Also in terms of which names to use you have to consider what the academic world things. People who study China and Chinese culture clearly disambiguate between Taiwan and ROC, even though the popular media doesn't do this. It's an important distinction because the ROC government is the government that Sun founded, and it is the government Chiang moved across the strait.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Insisting on the term Republic of China is inherently POV, as well. Even if it is the official name, to insist that we continue to call this region by this name would be the same as insisting that the Byzantine Empire be referred to as the "Roman Empire," as they formerly controlled these lands. By insisting on using the formal name, instead of the most common name, the modern nation is forcibly connected to its past, which ignores the fact that the majority of Taiwanese people have only a tentative connection to the mainland. Yes, Taiwan is slightly POV, but so is insisting on referring to the nation as the Republic of China. When both options are POV, the most common name should apply. Crispus (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• • "slightly POV" - That's a problem. The NPOV principle should overrule "commonname" - If we are discussing a POV term in and of itself, then it's not against "POV". WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

But as pointed out, the Republic of China isn't just Taiwan, it's history and constitution go beyond that. The former status quo (PRC and ROC at each other's respective official titles) remained relatively stable until that requested few months ago. Until there is a new constitution, it's likely the state will remain as the Republic of China for the indefinite future. Perhaps a closer look at WP:NC-TW would be helpful. --Tærkast (Discuss) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the naming conventions for China and Taiwan on Wikipedia. What I'm trying to do is change them. Yes, Taiwan does still have claims on the mainland. But they no longer exercise control there, hence why the rest of the world has started referring to them as Taiwan. Maintaining the official name, while helpful in some regards, also confuses the issue. Furthermore, Referring to one as "China" and the other as "Republic of China" seems to imply that the former is more legitimate. Crispus (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It could imply that of course, as unfortunately, at the time the controversial move was taking place, it was felt that ROC-PRC article consistency was irrelevant to the issue at large. The ROC still exists, so does the PRC, there's no disputing that, and there's little dispute on the common names of those states. As I've said I can see the reasoning behind the requested move, but I wouldn't be comfortable in supporting it.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to here that. I can understand the reasons to keep it the way it is, even if I disagree with them. It's nice to have someone who I can disagree with, without heated passions coming into play. Crispus (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per WhisperToMe.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• OpposeTaiwan != ROChina.--刻意(Kèyì) 20:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Changing to Oppose myself, as per Benlisquare, TaerkastUA and WhisperToMe. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support As the common format of country topics in use in wikipedia usually follow their most used and well-known name according to their geographical location in reality, such as Republic of Korea → South Korea, PRC → China, Republic of Ireland → Ireland. No doubt this article should also be treated the same as other cases. Besides, the name of "Taiwan" has been regarded to almost features of the current ROC both domestically and internationally, merely denoting "Republic of China" which likely gain much confusion if some readers haven't got general idea with the issues of Taiwan/ROC political status. Therefore I basically approve this removal proposal with those reasons. If some editers concern its historical aspect, the way changes to "Republic of China (Taiwan)" which i can personally accept as well because it reflects the actual state--ILVTW (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is not at Ireland, though. That issue is itself controversial, as those familiar with the Irish naming dispute should be aware. Also, the Irish situation is different, so that can't be applied too freely here, i.e. one state officially called "Ireland" whose legal description is "Republic of Ireland", but no two governments disputing its sovereignty.--Tærkast (Discuss) 22:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I propose that, if this discussions leads to no consensus, then it automatically declares the previous move of "People's Republic of China" to "China" as a no-conensus too, leading to a move back to the old status quo.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like that, because as far as I could see, there was no clear consensus to move the PRC to China, but the triumvirate of admins decided otherwise. I was also going to raise a similar question by asking if this leads to no consensus, would this impact the "China" article.--Tærkast (Discuss) 22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The panel argued that "(If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased (from Wikipedia:NPOV#Naming)." But POV/NPOV should consider all languages equally, and in the Sinosphere referring to the ROC as "Taiwan" or the PRC as "China" is seen as a strong POV and as not going by "an event commonly known as a POV-sounding name" - NPOV outweighs commonname WhisperToMe (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, should I notify the triumvirate of admins that I would like to use this discussion to overrule their discussion? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that proposal. If you want to change China back to People's Republic of China, then you should make that a separate motion. That issue is far less controversial than this one. Crispus (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

another arbitrary break

• Support per WP:UCN/WP:OFFICIALNAMES (use common names/common names are preferred to official names) and WP:NCDAB (use clear and unambiguous terms). In short, the country is commonly as "Taiwan", "Republic of China" is ambiguous, and the primary topic of "Taiwan" is the country. (cf. South Korea, East Timor) —  AjaxSmack  01:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Taiwan is ambiguous. Are we referring to the Republic of Taiwan (台灣國 or 台灣共和國) proposed by the Pan-Green coalition and Taiwan independence supporters, or are we referring to to Taiwan Province? As I've mentioned in an earlier discussion, "Government of Taiwan" can mean anything from the local provincial government of Taiwan Province, to (informally) the ROC National Government itself. The PRC even maintains an office cubicle in Beijing to "administer" (note the quotation marks) Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • No, it's not ambiguous any more than Luxembourg or Benin are. It's the common name of a country and the primary topic of the name. —  AjaxSmack  01:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
      • No UN member state acknowledges or recognises "Taiwan" as a country, and the only 23 nations that have official, direct relations with the ROC refer to it as the ROC. It is not the primary topic of the name, as the ROC has historically controlled much more than Taiwan, at a time when Taiwan was as Japanese as Korea, South Pacific Mandate, Karafuto and the Ryukyus were. The ROC was on the mainland (where it started off from) for 37 years, and on Taiwan for 66 years, including overlap, over it's 100 year history. 37 years is a pretty significant timeframe - longer than Nazi Germany ever existed for. The ROC:
        • Controlled much of mainland China from 1912 to 1949
        • Controlled Outer Mongolia from 1919 to 1921
        • Throughout time had varying control within Xinjiang and the Tibetan plateau
        • An island off the coast of Southern Vietnam from 1949 to 1953
        • Significant military presence in Burma (the army of Li Mi) from 1949 to 1961 (in fact, many of the ROC soldiers that refused to retreat to Taiwan are still living in Burma, Thailand and Cambodia, growing and selling drugs such as opium along with their descendants)
        • Hainan, Wanshan Archipelago and Nanpēng Archipelago (then Guangdong Province) until 1950, the Dachen Islands and Yijiangshan Islands (Chekiang Province, Republic of China, today Zhejiang Province three clicks away from Shanghai) until 1955
        • today controls, in addition to Tai-Peng-Kin-Ma, the Dongsha Islands off the coast from Guangdong, three clicks away from Hong Kong and twelve clicks away from Taiwan Island; and Taiping island, ten clicks from Vietnam and a hundred clicks from Taiwan Island.

I sincerely dispute that the primary topic of ROC is Taiwan. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe you misunderstood my position. I meant that the primary topic of "Taiwan" is the country (not the island or a historical entity). I agree that ROC does not refer only to Taiwan. The mainland ROC regime is at least as important and that material that should appear in Republic of China (1912–1949), not here in an article on the contemporary state on Taiwan. That's the problem with the current title situation at Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  02:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that article is that many editors are opposed to its split from the ROC article, as it implies that the ROC is not continuous, and that they are separate entities. One only has to see the talk page at the 1912-1949 article to see that there is quite a vocal dispute going on there. The 1912-1949 article was split only a few weeks ago, and there is already sigificant opposition to it, and calls for another merger. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia should be optimised for readers, not editors. Which brings us back to WP:UCN (use common names). —  AjaxSmack  02:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I suggest that those unfamiliar with cross-strait issues read the following articles to gain a more thorough understanding of the situation:
  • Cross-strait relations
  • Political status of Taiwan; Legal status of Taiwan
  • Foreign relations of the Republic of China
  • Chinese Civil War
  • Taiwan, China; Chinese Taipei; Taiwanese identity; Fujian Province, Republic of China
  • 1992 Consensus; One China; Two Chinas
  • Chinese reunification; Taiwan independence
  • Free Area of the Republic of China
  • Four Noes and One Without; Special non-state-to-state relations

These should be able to provide adequate information regarding this issue. This is all-in-all a very complex and controversial issue, both on Wikipedia in the past, and politically in real life. Any decisions the Wikipedia community makes must be made with utmost care. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a complicated issue, and should be read. Fun reading IMHO, as well. Crispus (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for the same reasons Benlisquare and WhisperToMe give, and the nominator's example of geographic comparisons is false, for obvious reasons. For Hawaii, Malta, and Orkney, names other than the whole are very commonly used to specify the main islands, i.e. "Big Island [of Hawaii]", "Malta Island", and "Mainland, Orkney". This is simply not the case for TW, and for us to move the page on the ROC to "Taiwan" would be to create confusion and to set bogus definitions, in other words dead wrong. Contrary to the nominator's concerns, (the quality of )article content is wholly irrelevant to a move discussion. If this proposed move is enacted, I hope Wiki pays a heavy price for its willingness to blindly sacrifice precision.  The Tartanator  02:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said that article content quality should be the reason for the nomination. Not to rehash, but the problem is that this article is trying to cover two topics, namely 1. A regime that formerly controlled most of mainland China, and 2. The state which exists in modern day Taiwan. What they share in common political history they lack in Political system (autocracy v. democracy), population (both Han, but from different parts of the country), and geography (obviously). Taiwan is the most commonly used name to describe both the nation which is mostly on the island, and the island itself. However, if one wishes to just mean the island, the term Taiwan Island can be used (much like 台湾岛 is used in Chinese). So I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Crispus (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Can be used"...Of course they can be. However, the crux of my argument requires you to show that the terms "Taiwan Island" and "台湾岛" are commonly used to specify the island alone in the likes of "Big Island (of Hawaii)", "Malta Island" and "Mainland, Orkney".  The Tartanator  05:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time now to look for figures to prove that I'm not unique in expecting Taiwan to be an article about the present day nation, given that it's clearly the primary use in English language media of the word "Taiwan" and almost all countries articles in Wikipedia are at their common name (e.g. Libya, United Kingdom, East Timor, Luxembourg, etc, etc), . I'd expect to find the article about the island at Taiwan (island) or Taiwan island, because that's how Wikipedia's naming works for things that aren't the primary topic for the name. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom certainly isn't the common name. See here. Kauffner (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons that many others have stated — mainly, in that Republic of China and Taiwan are closely-related, but non-identical concepts. --Nlu (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - For the confusion it will increase, especially since China->PRC has already wreaked havoc on the legitimacy of Wikipedia and NPOV TruthAndHonestyFirst (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)— TruthAndHonestyFirst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: I really don't understand why IP comments are being blanked. Is there something that I am not aware of that I should know? I'm sure IPs have the right to make comments within this discussion as well; am I mistaken? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's in order to prevent de facto sock puppets from being used, as someone with a user name could use either? Your guess is as good as mine (de facto seems like a good word to bring up in the midst of this discussion). Crispus (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:PILLAR - "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute."
      WP:IP - "They may create talk pages in any talk namespace but may need to ask for help to create pages in some parts of the wiki."
      WP:ACCOUNT - "You do not have to log in to learn. Almost anyone can edit almost any article at any given time too, but be aware that the sources of edits are always publicly displayed."
      WP:TALK - "Be welcoming to newcomers"
      WP:BITE - "New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience"
      I don't see anything within policy that prohibits IPs from sharing their opinions and points within a discussion; rather I tend to see the opposite. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the IPs other edits indicate pretty clearly it is an Instantnood sock, who always shows up to disrupt polls on Chinese subjects. The user immediately above (TruthAndHonestyFirst) is also likely a sock, I don't know whose. I'll just mark that one SPA. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Comment - Will there be a final solution to this problem in the near future? Because it seems at the moment, it is not at all possible to reach a situation whereby everyone would be satisified with the outcome, which is one of the reasons why I mentioned the former status quo worked reasonably well in respect of the situation. Should the PRC/ROC naming dispute be taken to more formal methods of dispute resolution ala Ireland, Burma/Myanmar? I'm asking this because whatever the outcome, it is likely that there will be more move requests, questions, etc to come --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, ever since the PRC was changed to China, it's been a big mess. I'd agree that we either need to have it the old way at China and Republic of China, or changed it to China and Taiwan (the way I think is better). However, I think that changing China back should be discussed on the China page, not here. The problem is that the change from Republic of China to Taiwan is more controversial than PRC to China, given the more sensitive nature of the topic, and the convoluted history of the government. So it pretty much sticks us between a rock and a hard place. Crispus (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. ROC and Taiwan are different concepts. ROC is the formal name of the state which governed Mainland China before 1945 and now governs Taiwan Island and two counties of Fujian Province. I know in the English world Taiwan is now usually used to refer to ROC, but it's a WP:BIAS and very misleading when we are talking about ROC's pre-1949 history. MtBell 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:COMMONAME. Taiwan is the common short name in the English language. Made in Taiwan appears on all its products. The World Factbook has its entry under Taiwan, as do the Encyclopædia Britannica and others. Other countries with a main island - e.g. Iceland - also have the same name for the main island and the country. It's a common thing. One could make a separate entry for Taiwan (island). The excessively political names -instead of common short names as with other countries and according to our policy- for China (resolved) and Taiwan are/were major weaknesses of Wikipedia. This discussion provides an excellent opportunity to resolve the second problem. gidonb (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I argue that the nuanced political distinctions is one of Wikipedia's strengths. We can go beyond mere colloquialisms. Also keep in mind the "World Factbook" is a product of the United States Government, which is under the "One China Policy." WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Nuanced distinctions are certainly a strength of Wikipedia, if made at the appropriate place. The problem is: when it's barely relevant, there'll be editors who try to push it into the body of text. If it actually should be there, they will want it in the intro. If it should be in the intro, like this one, they want it in the title. Republic of China (Taiwan) is the long name, Taiwan is the short name. We can have the long name, Republic of China (Taiwan), on top of the info box and the short name as the title. It's the Wikipedia thing to do. Why front load the "nuanced political distinctions" into the title? The World Fact Book, the wording on Taiwanese export products and the Britannica all agree on the English-language short name. It is straightforward. I see a lot of politics in the reactions here versus sticking to our policies and doing things the Wikipedia way. For example, I gave three important sources for the use of Taiwan, you picked out one and immediately relate it to politics. This is symptomatic for our problems here. We should make our encyclopedia NPOV by adhering to our policies. gidonb (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • AFAIK it is all about politics. The "Republic of China" is a political entity. If we were talking about simply the island we would consult "Taiwan"
      • Speaking of which Britannica itself uses "Taiwan (self-governing island, Asia)" - But the description "self-governing island" is itself POV, isn't it? That's the Chen Shui-bian position.
      • WhisperToMe (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
        • See response after the next comment. gidonb (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • >Made in Taiwan appears on all its products
    Nope. My LCD screen reads "Made in Taiwan, R.O.C.". In this case, Taiwan refers to Taiwan Province, a geopolitical subdivision of the ROC. See also my earlier post(s) at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 5#Lead section specifically dealing with the issue. It's a much more complicated issue than you are interpreting it to be - Pan-Green leaning companies use one branding, Pan-Blue leaning companies use the other. A hypothetical analogy would be if the Democrats supported calling the United States "America", and the Republicans supported calling the United States "Bmerica", then "Made in Bmerica" would appear on products created by Republican-leaning companies, whilst "Made in America" would appear on products created by Democrat-leaning companies. Furthermore, note that many products bear the branding "Made in Hong Kong", such as various confectionery products, even though Hong Kong is a political subdivision of the PRC with some degree of autonomy, and not a country. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, I just realised that even the link to Made in Taiwan you give doesn't even support your argument. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Belinsquare, I can't do much with your claims about apparel in your house. I can say that that Made in Taiwan is the common inscription and the name of our article. A product that reads "Made in Taiwan R. O. C." as we see in the picture in the article says the same as "Republic of China (Taiwan)", that is, it acknowledges that the concepts are interchangeable in English.
      • Both of you insist on politics, so lets face it head on. You seem concerned that the name Taiwan assists those who lean towards a different -more separate- status quo and seem to prefer a long, in English less common option that keeps Taiwan as Chinese as possible. Neither of these political directions is our concern. We just look for the common use name as directed by our policies. Maybe those who support a different status quo embraced a name for the same reasons. Maybe not. It doesn't matter. We don't forbid the common names of regions even where organizations commit atrocities to make their region independent. It would be 100% against our policies. Our concern is NPOV and choosing for a long, uncommon form because of political POV is just as much against our policies. gidonb (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not in my home city at the moment, but likewise here's a desklamp that reads "Made in Taiwan R.O.C." No, what you are saying is incorrect. "Made in Taiwan, ROC" is not the same as "Republic of China (Taiwan)". When you put x before y separated by a comma, you are separating the provincial or equivalent political subdivision from the sovereign state, akin to "Texas, United States", "Queensland, Australia" or "Hunan, China". In our example, "Taiwan" is the provincial subdivision, and "R.O.C." is the sovereign state. "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is the thing some people do so that those foreign to the whole Taiwan/ROC hubbub don't get confused, and is a completely different thing. They are not interchangeable. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Most products from Taiwan in the USA just says "Made in Taiwan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
            • That's correct. gidonb (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Re your rebuttal of Benlisquare: If Benlisquare shows proof that there is such an arrangement in terms of Taiwanese companies branding products, then that means the pro-rename side can't use that argument anymore.
        • "We don't forbid the common names of regions even where organizations commit atrocities to make their region independent." - I don't think that's a good analogy. It's not a matter of whether each side is morally right - it's a matter of judging the language used.
        • WhisperToMe (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
          • You two and others are welcome to raise any points you like! As things stand we have established that for the English language Taiwan is both the common name - as per consensus among professionally edited sources - and the NPOV name to use - as the opposition to the name is politically motivated. By the way, common name is enough to establish that Taiwan is the name that we should use according to our policies. gidonb (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
            • And "Made in Taiwan" isn't politically partisan? Have you thoroughly read what I have written? Ditching one side would be dropping the Pan-Blue POV, but supporting the Pan-Green POV. Ditching the other side would have the contrary. It isn't as simple as "hey guys, let's pick one of the two". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
              • I do not want to rub it in, but one look at your photo is enough to establish that your argument is not relevant. I'll tell you something. Some 5 years ago I noticed that our Republic of China article was strangely linked to other Wikipedias. When the other language Wikipedia used ROC as the country it is was linked directly. If the other country used to Taiwan it was linked to the redirect. It may still be the practice. I tried to change this biased way of linking once or twice, but it was immediately changed back. I know that this is important for you, appreciate that you try to argue your POV, but it is as straightforward as you fear. Your POV and the other POV are not our concern. We cannot fail to use the common name because of your POV. We can only make a simple choice according to our policies. gidonb (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
                • In other words, "I didn't hear that." Whether or not you're intentionally ignoring the point is none of my concern. The issue is that there is a POV issue, regardless of whether or not you want to hide it behind a vase or not. There is a disagreement on the issue, and that alone demonstrates that consensus is not leaning towards what you see to be the ideal solution. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
                  • You asked for it, so you'll have it. This weekend I'm not on Wikipedia (running out the door now) but I'll have time to think about how to answer this in a civilized manner. In the meantime I request a closing administrator (if at all) to take a fast peek at the photo and compare it with your argument. gidonb (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm reluctantly opposing this; I agree the current title is unsatisfactory, and also agree that the page should be moved. I’m less convinced about the remedy.

I’d a say simply moving the article to “Taiwan” is a recipe for confusion.

But moving this to "Republic of China (Taiwan)" would be a step in the right direction; as it’s the official name for the place, would there be more agreement (or less room for objection) to a move to there, instead? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Reality check. Except on Wikipedia, where do you hear that the government on Taiwan is trying to take over China, or that it has its focus on the mainland rather than on intra-island politics? Also, this is not a pan-green vs. pan-blue issue, because the English language usage across the political spectrum is unanimously "Taiwan". Quigley (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: The articles already clarify the position - The ROC no longer actively aspires to be the only government of China, but it still says that it is (a part of) China - there is a difference in the two positions. 128.186.143.182 (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- I realize that it is called Taiwan but for crying out loud the Republic Of China ruled Mainland China from 1912-1949. I did not like calling the People's Republic Of China article "China". Their Is A Long And Complex Political Status Of Taiwan because it is called Republic Of China. Calling it Taiwan could get the article mixed up with Taiwan Province, PRC and Taiwan Province, ROC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyle4ful (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There is going to be a refocused Republic of China (1912-1949) article. All the Political status of taiwan, Taiwan province issues are all post-1949 anyways. If your reason to vote oppose is because of concern that the pre-1949 stuff doesn't fit, not to worry. Benjwong (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought they were going to merge Republic Of China and Republic Of China (1912-1949), so now their not going to, I guess. What I'm Trying To Say Though Is That The People's Republic Of China Should Not Have Been Renamed "China" Because It Put Us In This Situation. Tyle4ful (talk) 20|42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd wonder if 'Republic of China (Taiwan)' be an official name, or merely a self-styled description. It lacks statutory standing, for instance. 119.237.249.129 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not our place to interpret Taiwanese law, which I assume is written in Chinese anyway. However, the name "Republic of China" is still official in the sense that it is the preferred form used in The Republic of China Yearbook, which would seem to be the most comprehensive English-language publication of the Taiwanese government. I note that our infobox does not ask for "most official form", but rather "conventional long name." "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is the long name used on both on foreign ministry site and the government portal, and it is displayed prominently on top of both sites. Kauffner (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, under the Constitution, Article 1 [1] it's still called the "Republic of China".--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I note that you are linking to the "Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan)", which is located on the Website of the "Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan)". Kauffner (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I am aware of that, but it would be useful to read the Constitution (and that specific article) to understand my point, which is that the state is still officially the "Republic of China", it is government policy since the days of President Chen Shui-ban to have "(Taiwan)" added to the English versions, probably to help distinguish the ROC from the PRC.--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Note also, the address given underneath in Government sites, which usually end in "Taiwan, R.O.C.", not "Taiwan, R.O.C. (Taiwan)". Government Information Office--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I can’t work out what this is actually proposing, as there are several different interpretations from different people here. I’ll just lay out my entire opinion here: I would support this article being moved to Taiwan (country), Republic of China (1949–present) or any similarly unambiguous title (and the history section being rewritten accordingly). However, I oppose this article being called either “Republic of China” or “Taiwan”, both are ambiguous. “Republic of China” may always refer to the same political entity, but their history must be split into separate articles, it isn’t possible to have a reasonable article about both the current state and the one that existed before 1949. “Taiwan” could refer at the very least to either the island or the current country, an article about both isn’t a valid option.
  In short, whichever is better out of “Taiwan” or “Republic of China”, this article need a bracketed disambiguation to declare exactly what the article is about. MTC (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason why the idea of splitting "ROC" into "pre" and "post" 1949 is disputed is because Chiang and his toadies simply moved the government across the straits. It's not like the ROC government was completely obliterated by the PRC, with elements reconstituting themselves on Taiwan. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The PRC article should be moved back too, and after that there should be an ArbCom ban in the same fashion as Ireland or Georgia. 147.8.46.215 (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Per what the IP said above, I think we need to stop requested moves (for now) and establish some formal discussion (maybe away from this or the China talkpages, instead at a project page or something else) perhaps something like Arbcom, Mediation etc, to gather community wide discussion on the issue of "China".--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

After we moved PRC -> China. I thought a vote like this would be much easier. So far this is not the case at all. For people who really edit these articles, having duplicate articles are bad. That is why we need to make a move somewhere. Benjwong (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing easy about that move, nor this one, as is to be expected of a dispute of this nature, which is why I think a more formal course of resolution is in order.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I certainly realise that the situation is 'messy' (to put it mildly) but I believe wp:commonname to be the most important part of the guidance, and Taiwan is far more commonly used than Republic of China. We are doing a disservice to our readers who would expect an article on the country not a geographical entity. This situation is causing a mess on related articles such as Economy of Taiwan (just read the first sentence there). Polequant (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject of this article is the government, the Republic of China, which is at least unambiguous. It was the Republic of China in 1944, when it did not include Taiwan, and it still is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I propose edit protection (or at least semi-protection) for this article until this dispute is settled. The article is really messy now in my opinion if one were to take a look at the earlier versions a few months back. With reference to the infobox, I don't see what is the point on having retrocession of Taiwan in 1945, the ROC's withdrawal from the UN in 1971 or even its first direct presidential election in 1996 affecting its "establishment", which by common-sense three major events - the Wuchang Uprising in 10/10/1911, the establishment of the republic's government on 01/01/1912 and the relocation to Taiwan on 07/12/1949. If that is the case, I could also put one of those events in the Singapore article since its first direct presidential election was in 1993. My personal opinion is that this dispute flared up due to the recent renaming/merging of the PRC article to "China", which is embroiled in its own dispute. Now this is giving so much trouble to many other related articles. Raiolu (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:PRECISE. Proposed name is majorly ambiguous and would create even more confusion in my opinion. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of pages linking to Taiwan and I'll bet 90% explicitly refer to the island. Nightw 15:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That would be because the island article is currently at the Taiwan location. The proposed name change actually tries to solve the problem you point at and move the article to its common name in the English language. gidonb (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose, by renaming these articles does that mean Wikipedia support One Country on Each Side ?C933103 (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, either name could give just as much support. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support for two primary reasons: proposed name is the Common Name - most English speakers won't even know the term "Republic of China." The other is consistency - if the PRC is at the common name, the ROC should be too. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is no such country as "Taiwan". Taiwan is an isle. The ROC is much more than the island of Taiwan. It goes too far to apply WP:commonname here. This whole thing had made the article already a mess (with this stupid split up). Just keep the correct name. There is a country called ROC and it exists since 1911. Calling the country Taiwan is plain OR. There no country called "Taiwan". In addition it would be also a very political to create a country called Taiwan, which is simply not our duty. The move of PRC to China was already bad, but moving ROC to Taiwan would crack things completly up. StoneProphet (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

archiving

I've taken the liberty of archiving some of the threads here: The page was up to 195Kb of stuff, so the RM discussion would be running out of space. I've also put some breaks in the RM section, to make it easier to navigate. I trust that's OK with everyone. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

New Proposal (requested move)

{{movereq|multiple=yes |current1=Republic of China|new1=Taiwan|current2=Taiwan|new2=Taiwan (island)|current3=Republic of China (1912–1949)|new3=Republic of China}}

• Republic of China → Taiwan
• Taiwan → Taiwan (island)
• Republic of China (1912–1949) → Republic of China

– The rationale is listed below. I would just like stress that the articles are not intended to remain as they currently are, but are to be changed in the way it's specified below by Readin. TheFreeloader (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC) TheFreeloader (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Deletion by User:Jiang 07:58, 26 November 2011‎ (UTC) [2]

This is a bit premature as the previous discussion hasn't officially closed, but I won't have time to write this up during the week. I havn't followed a formal process because this isn't really a merge or a move - it's more just a clarification and modest change to content. If someone knows of a formal process for this I would be happy to follow it or that someone can take the initiative.

Most of the objection to the suggestion of renaming the Republic of China article to "Taiwan" came from the correct observation that there would be no good place to put a consolidated account of the Republic of China that includes its history in mainland China. Rather than moving or renaming either article, this proposal says that we make the "Taiwan" article about the modern place and politics while making the Republic of China article focussed on the government. We can still have a "Taiwan (island)" article that focusses purely on the geography of the big island.

Reasons:

1. Countries and provinces are generally tracked by most people by their location and people. This is why the Alaska article include's Alaska's history as a colony and territory, and the France article includes history prior to the founding of the Fifth French Republic. When people are looking or information about the people, culture, history, government, economy etc. of what we're discussing, they're going to look for "Taiwan" not for "Republic of China" (WP:COMMONNAME).

2. When the Republic of China moved their capital to Taipei, mostly they brought government and the military (which is an arm of the government). The fact that the ROC can still be considered the same entity before and after a near complete change of land and people underscores the extent to which the ROC is primarily a government - the government of Taiwan today and prior to the 1940s the government of mainland China. It makes sense for the Republic of China article to be focussed on the government and on government functions.

3. How do we start the "Taiwan" article? Do we say "Taiwan is an island" or do we say (to use the terminology from the current ROC article "Taiwan is a unitary sovereign state located in East Asia." I think we need to recognize that there is a main island, and that is why we would have a "Taiwan (island)" article that would start "Taiwan is an island...". Meanwhile, the Taiwan article would start "Taiwan, formally the Republic of China (ROC) (see below), is a unitary sovereign state located in East Asia." (actually I'm not wedded to the "unitary sovereign state" part).

The Taiwan article would be much like the France or Alaska articles - encompassing the all aspects of the current place and political entity. The Taiwan (island) article will be comparable to the Hawaiian Islands and Italian Peninsula articles focussing on the geographic entity. The Republic of China article would be comparable to the French Fifth Republic article focussing on the government. However the ROC article would be a bit broader as it would include both the government and military history of the ROC (as those were they primary things that remained consistent enough for us to trace a common history).

To Summarize:

• Taiwan is about whole modern entity and the history of its location - like Alaska or France
• Republic of China is about the government and military that govern Taiwan and that used to govern mainland China - like French Fifth Republic but with more history.
• Taiwan (island) is about the geographic entity - like Hawaiian Islands or Italian Peninsula.

The articles are already close to this arrangement so not much would change. Instead we would be formalizing and clarify much of what we've already been doing. The biggest changes would be adding the big Republic of China box that currently appears on the right of this article to the Taiwan article (so people looking for information on "Taiwan" would get the understanding that the state is the Republic of China and would have information on that state immediately available) and the creation of the purely geographical Taiwan (island) page. Readin (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support For the reasons listed above. Readin (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Also move Republic of China (1912–1949) to Republic of China and merge it with the post-1949 history here. Kauffner (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a bit more? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Have a Republic of China (1912-1949) article and a Taiwan article for all post-1949 stuff. This is consistent with PRC -> China, and there are no duplicates. Benjwong (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposal doesn't have duplicates except in the sense of an overview-detail article. For example, the current Taiwan article has a "History" section that gives an overview of Taiwan's history, but also provides a link to the more detailed History of Taiwan article. Similarly, the proposal's Taiwan article would briefly describe discuss the Republic of China government but the details of the government would be in the main Republic of China article.

The Republic of China (1912-1949) is a good article to link to from the Republic of China article, but I don't think it is sufficient by itself to handle the continuity of government institutions that survived the movement of the capital from mainland China to Taiwan. For example, if an article needs to say Chiang Kai-shek was the president of the Republic of China, it is not enough to link to an article that only talks about 1912-1949, and it is not enough to link to an article that says nothing about the ROC prior to 1945. I think that point was well made by a lot of editors in the previous discussion, but I'll add this: Several hundred thousand soldiers and a lot of government officials moved from mainland China to Taiwan. In Taiwan they continued to have the same leaders as before, the values (they used them to name the streets of Taiwanese cities) the same rules of government, etc.. Something remained of what had been in mainland China. Whether that something can be called "China" is POV, but there certainly was something. The ROC did have to change when it came to Taiwan, but changing is not the same as ceasing to exist. Readin (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of China (1912-1949) article is misleading in suggesting that the KMT ruled a cohesive and centralized Chinese from 1912 to 1949 and should not exist. There should be a historical country template applied for an article titled "Nationalist Government" covering the years 1927 to 1948 just like there is one for the Beiyang Government. If Republic of China (1912-1949) were kept, it would need 2-3 different flags, 3 national anthems, and 6-7 capitals in the infobox. --Jiang (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jiang regarding Republic of China (1912-1949). 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support It's a way forward out of this dispute. Although I would have preferred the old arrangement (with the China article being on the nation and/or civilization, and the PRC & ROC having their own respective articles). This is a viable resolution since the reversion of the PRC -> China article merge seems quite remote. At least it'll remove the "Republic of China (1912-1949)" article since it implies a "constitutional or lawful" break with the current ROC, which constitution for goodness sake was in force in 1947 on the mainland. Raiolu (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But what we should do is to roll back the PRC -> China move, instead of making more messes around. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Much butter than moving. Anyway, I like the earliest version.Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 14:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What we should do is to roll back the PRC -> China move, instead of making more messes around. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support As far as I read this, the information on this page (not including history) would be the information we'd have on the Taiwan page, the bulk of History we have here would go on a page similar to Government of the Republic of China, and the current Taiwan article would be the island article. This makes sense and is a useful way to tackle the unique situation in regards to the government. The Republic of China (1912–1949) article should stay to cover demographics etc. of that period of time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That should instead be covered by an article titled History of the Republic of China (1912-1949). 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. --Nlu (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

With no reason? (This isn't how Wikipedia operates.) 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no "modern entity" of Taiwan different from the earlier ROC which e.g. founded the UN and so on. Just keep everything where it belongs. The ROC is a country existing since 1911, and therefore should everything which belongs to the ROC into the ROC article. From 1911 onwards. Taiwan is just a geographic location, its not a country. Everything was fine until this moving and splitting started... StoneProphet (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If the ROC is a nation founded from 1911 onwards, couldn't we just name this article "China"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.150.191 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, because it is no longer commonly known as "China" and is very rarely referred to as such in a modern context.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, 1.3 billion people certainly thinks of it as "China".

You're confusing the People's Republic of China with the Republic of China. The PRC governs the mainland with 1.3 billion people, not the ROC, which currently controls and is commonly known as "Taiwan"--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no there is no confusion between the PRC and ROC here. Rightly or wrongly, the people of the PRC consider the ROC an integral part of Chinese history. And despite Taiwan being ruled de facto by a different regime than the one in Beijing, the island is considered Chinese. The "rogue" regime just happens to call itself the "Republic of China." (The PRC considers the ROC to be defunct since 1949.) Ngchen (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but from what I see, the IP seems to be suggesting that the ROC is still that one "China".--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

They're both "China". Can we just end this whole unnecessariness and revert the "China" article to show both the PRC and the ROC? I don't know what happened behind the scenes when the 3 Admins made their decision, but it's obvious they did not have a clue what they were doing.

I agree that the former status quo was the best situation, which was relatively stable up until that move request. However, the triumvirate decided to move the article. Again, I'm not sure it should have been moved due to little consensus to do so, but it's happened, and now we have a "China" (PRC) and "Republic of China" article.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What we should do is to roll back the PRC -> China move, instead of making more messes around. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes they're both China as a geographical territory. Whether China is one or two (or three or more) countries is an irrelevant question. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: any attempt that change the state of Taiwan is offensive to certain group of people. Please every deal with this problem cautiously. Change Taiwan to something like France or Alaska is nothing different to say Wikipedia support Taiwan independence officially; while changing Taiwan to Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is nothing different to say Wikipedia support Chinese Communist Party. Any change in Wikipedia may severely influence the Taiwan identity in reality. Currently, only Free area of the Republic of China can be a candidate to describe Taiwan. Politically sensitive article which is often-clicked should be written in an apolitical way. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Following common english is probably the most apolitical way to name something, and surely if one is trying to make a name with no implications a title with the word "free" would be a terrible choice. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the most apolitical way is the geographic way - everyone, whatever political group they belongs to, agree that Taiwan is an island. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We'd still have the Taiwan island article with this proposal. That would still be there. As for the state article title, we have policies and guidelines that deal with naming. Following these (meaning not trying to pick a politically correct way of wording something) would be the most apolitical way to determine article title. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no apolitical way to write about Taiwan. Right now, Wikipedia treats the ROC as a legitimate state (offensive to PRC and most countries' POV), and Taiwan as a province of that state rather than its own country (offensive to Taiwan independence POV). This proposal wouldn't really change that, but would conform to the overwhelming English usage across the political spectrum. Anyway, I seriously doubt that any significant shift in cross-strait relations will come about as a result of this Wikipedia title. Quigley (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia treats the ROC as a state, without point out/specify whether it's "legimate" or not, so this is not offensive to PRC (even if it is, it's a simple fact that PRC have no way out this). Neither is it offensive to Taiwan independencist for it' a simple fact that they have no way out this. However, have a "Taiwan" article as an "entity", with a ROC flag on it, is Taiwan independencist POV and represent only the Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China (say The Republic of China is Taiwan), which is severely controversial. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is kinda ironic and paradoxical that you can keep finding groups we are supposedly pandering to by doing these changes, while at the same time be claiming that it's an indisputable fact that things have to be named the way they are now. Surely all the people you are claiming we would be pandering do not agree that things have to be named as they are now. In my opinion the best way of avoiding the appearance of Wikipedia taking sides in this controversial issue, is that we choose to name the articles in the manner which sticks out the least in the eyes of our readers, which I think means conforming to the practices of outside sources, whatever they might be. That way anyone who reads these article in good faith would just assume that we are following convention to make ourselves as clear as possible to our readers. And they would be right to assume so, given that recognizability and naturalness are among the principal criteria for titling of Wikipedia articles.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support. This does accomplish the most important object of these discussion, which is to get the country moved to its common name. But I still prefer the former proposal, as this proposal does bring forth the problem of how to separate a country and its government. To me it's not really possible to cover a country in any complete way without also describing its current government. I do admit that this proposal does have the advantage of making it possible to clearly show the continuation of the RoC government which ruled all of China in the RoC government which is residing on Taiwan. But I am not sure this advantage outweighs the disadvantage of having to separate a country and its government.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason the government can't be described on the country article. I think the current politics subject material could easily stay. The main change will be in history, which currently covers the history of the ROC from establishment in 1912. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not how I read the proposal. But if what you are describing is actually what is meant by the proposal, then I would have a far less problems with it. There would still be the problem of duplicated information, although I see that as a much less serious problem.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What we should do is to roll back the PRC -> China move, instead of making more messes around. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support: This proposal seems much more plausible in comparison to the previous proposal, as it minimises the damage done by directly associating Taiwan with the entirety of the ROC. I still am wary of venturing away from the status quo, as I view that the status quo worked well, but if moves have to be done, doing it as proposed here is a much better option than a simple Taiwan=ROC move/merge. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What we should do is to roll back the PRC -> China move, instead of making more messes around. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support. I am responsible for single-handedly transplanting the countries template from Taiwan to Republic of China in 2003, but am giving support to this proposal because political changes in Taiwan in the past few years have made it increasingly less controversial to use "Taiwan" as conventional short form for the Republic of China. "Weak" because I think the proposal above needs to be slightly more concrete. Would WikiProject Countries infoboxes reside at both Republic of China and Taiwan after the change? I can understand what will happen to the Taiwan article, in that the countries template would be applied to it, but I'm not so clear on how the Republic of China article would be reorganized. Keep in mind that we would also need to deal with linkage issues, with [[Republic of China]] ([[Taiwan]]), [[Republic of China]] (Taiwan), Taiwan ([[Republic of China]]), [[Taiwan]] ([[Republic of China]]), and [[Republic of China|Taiwan]] all appearing at various places. Comment: Compare the difference between Holy See and Vatican City.--Jiang (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

  There are too many links to Republic of China, abbreviated or not; with parentheses or without. The previous setup forced this awkward wording, because Taiwan was about the island and not the country. There would be more links to just Taiwan under this proposal. Republic of China should be a disambiguation page between Republic of China (1912–1949) and a new Republic of China (Taiwan) that deals with post-1949 politics. Currently, this combined article describes neither topic well. Quigley (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

  But using a disambiguation page for Republic of China (1912-1949) and a new Republic of China (Taiwan) would suggest that the entities are different and separate. That suggestion has POV issues, since they can be reasonably argued to be the same. Ngchen (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

  No it wouldn't, it just shows we have different articles on the topic. That's all a disambiguation page does. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

  Your concerns are ones that should be settled by the naming conventions. The current proposal will not change the naming conventions. There are many current instances of [[Republic of China|Taiwan]] which sought to use the common term "Taiwan" while linking to the countries template at Republic of China. Disambiguation pages are for mutually exclusive entities; this is not. When you have even a single article whose text would more accurately link to a disambiguation page, then you have to rethink the appropriateness of the disambiguation page. In foreign relations, there are multiple instances where both the pre-1949 and post-1949 ROC is implicated, and we would have to either pick and choose (which is inaccurate), link to the disambiguation page (which is poor form), or link to both articles in the same word (which is confusing). Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad-concept_articles states "Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically or geographically, the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual." A primary topic article should be on the Republic of China on its entirety, while explaining all the political complexities associated with that term, including the PRC's view that the ROC was succeeded by it in 1949.--Jiang (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  An ROC article focused on the functions of the state shouldn't have a country infobox, as that infobox is built for a summary of an article on all aspects of a country (and a present summary). I believe the easiest way to implement the above proposal would be to shift the history section from the current Taiwan article to this article, move that article to Taiwan (island), move this article to Taiwan, and shift the history that is currently here now to a new Republic of China article then filling that out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as the proposal, I thought I had made it clear by saying "The biggest changes would be adding the big Republic of China box... " instead of saying "moving" the info box, but I can see by the confusion that I didn't make it clear. I believe the info box for the ROC should exist for both "Republic of China" article and for "Taiwan" article. The info box contains summary information that will be useful to people looking for either topics. One might find minor differences in what the info boxes should contain, but that can be worked out with further discussion. Readin (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Jiang, what should we do with matters such as Taiwanese independence? Readers may ask isn't it an independent country since 1949? Why are the people still debating whether or not Taiwan should go independent? Why was Taiwan as an independent country controlling the China seat in the UN till 1971, and US diplomatic recognition as China till 1978? Why is it controlling some isolated islands and islets on the Chinese coast? Did it invade China at some point after its independence in 1949 to take control of those islands? Why did a former Chinese president elected in 1948 and resigned in January 1949 regain the presidency fourteen months later as the Taiwanese president? Why did it join the WTO with such a clumsey name, but not simply as Taiwan? What'd been wrong with this country? All these can easily tackled with separate articles for China (geographical region), Republic of China and People's Republic of China. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This strikes me as a messy solution to a non-problem. I think "Republic of China" is a perfectly reasonable place for the current article of that title, and even if it wasn't, would it be so much worse than the alternative that this suggestion of splitting what are now two articles into three would be preferable? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

  The answer to your question is in the proposal. Basically, readers going to Taiwan are looking for information about a country; not an island. You, on the other hand, have not given any reason why this proposal would be "worse" than the current setup. Quigley (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

  Then make Taiwan a redirect to Republic of China and move the current Taiwan article to Taiwan (island). Having three articles is unnecessary and unhelpful to readers. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  The problem with that is that some editors want to include information about Republic of China (1912–1949) in Republic of China, whose history and scape is much different from that of Taiwan. Quigley (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  Interesting point. I'm still not sure, but I'm withdrawing my oppose vote in the light of your arguments.ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A solution is to move Taiwan to Taiwan (island), and to move Taiwan (disambiguation) to Taiwan. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Or alternatively, making Taiwan a protected redirect to Taiwan (disambiguation). 119.237.156.46 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems I'm trying to deal with is that the "Taiwan" article is currently treated by some as a geographic article and there have been arguments that much of the information currently in the "Taiwan" article isn't appropriate to an article about geography. If you look at geographic articles like Hawaiian islands or Madagascar (island) you find information about lakes, rivers, rocks, plants, and weather, but nothing about the people, cities, cultures, etc. or the history of such that people are interested in when they look up Taiwan. That's why the current Taiwan article doesn't fit in well with those geographic article. An important point of this proposal is to clarify that the Taiwan article isn't a geographic article like those others. Readin (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - As established in the previous discussion, Taiwan as a country name has a strong consensus among quality edited sources in English. Reason is easily outnumbered and that discussion was closed with no consensus. There was, however, a clear difference in the policy basis between the arguments. This proposal is a compromise, but I'll support it. Not weakly. It's a real improvement in an area where numbers and feelings beat policies. I support Common names and NPOV at Wikipedia and support this proposal. gidonb (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per the principle of least surprise; this is what people will expect when looking up these titles. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't fully understand the proposal. Which article is going to have {{Infobox country}} at the top? If it's Taiwan, then isn't this proposal essentially a move from ROC to Taiwan? Mlm42 (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• That's part of it, but this provides more overall structure, establishing more defined topics for each article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think the article titled "Taiwan" should be about the modern state, with the Taiwanese flag at the top. If that's what this proposal will result in, then I support it (per WP:COMMONNAME). Mlm42 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly this is the proposal. This time around we seem to be moving ROC to Taiwan, Taiwan to Taiwan (island), and the historic ROC article to ROC while extending it with some later stuff. gidonb (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• There is no "Taiwanese" flag, unless you're referring to this, this, this or this. The flag of the ROC is not the Taiwanese flag, as it was the only Chinese flag at a time when Taiwan was using the Japanese flag. But if you mean that the ROC flag will be displayed in the Taiwan article, then sure, that's probably what's going to happen. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• "There is no "Taiwanese" flag".. sigh. The page Flag of Taiwan redirects to Flag of the Republic of China. Also, try a Google image search for "Flag of Taiwan" if there are doubts about which flag is most commonly used. Mlm42 (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• As usual, despite enduring complaints about neutrality and being sensitive to politics, the idea that the PRC flag might fly over the Taiwan article is beyond the pale of civil Wikipedian discourse. This despite the fact that in the real world (which Wikipedia's configuration of China articles is getting closer to these days!), an overwhelming majority of states recognize Taiwan as a part of the PRC. Quigley (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• This comment isn't factually accurate. The majority of states (i.e. the Western bloc) "acknowledge" (or similar weasel term) the PRC's position with regard to Taiwan, but deliberately avoid the term "recognize". The United States, for one, recognizes the PRC as "China" but deliberately avoids saying anything to suggest that Taiwan is part of "China". In any event, NPOV is about acknowledging the different viewpoints, not going by the most prevalent one. Going by common names, I think there is a much stronger case to have the ROC country template at Taiwan than there is to have the PRC country template at China. --Jiang (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you elaborate why the case is stronger for the former than the latter? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• More accurately, most "Western bloc" countries (along with non-"Western bloc" countries that enjoys doing busines with Taiwan) recognize that there is only "One China" without recognizing that the Communist Party of China that rules the People's Republic of China also rules Taiwan; they recognize that the Republic of China is the administrative government (rules) of Taiwan. Put it another way, the ROC is not a part of the PRC under the CPC, the ROC (Taiwan) is a part of "One China". The Three Kingdoms (Wei, Wu and Shu) were all "China". But Wei was not Wu and Wu was not Shu and Shu was not Wei, etc. Which is why I believe the "China" article should be reverted to show the PRC and the ROC.

Agree. And more importantly the China article should reflect the different viewpoints that some consider both the current territorial extent of the ROC and the PRC to be part of China, whereas some other consider Taiwan as separated from and therefore isn't part of China. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought I had made it clar when I italized "adding" in the description at the top. The proposal has the infobox appearing in both the "Republic of China" article and in the "Taiwan" article because it contains summary information important to both. Readin (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose because 1) the general idea itself seems to be acceptable; 2) it is really weird for a country article to exclude politics, economy and other stuff; 3) i have no confidence in the result of this proposal. --DS - fax 14:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  1) sounds like a reason to support, and 2) wouldn't happen, as the country article would include politics and economy. Given this, does 3) still hold? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support This time I think I have to support the proposal, which is some sort of compromise between official name for the state since its founding and common name for the entity we usually know of in English language. --Chinyin (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and, according to Wikipedia, it is non-negotiable. It isn't something to be compromised. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I created a proposal overview table under my own signature, however it was immediately deleted from this page (yikes!). Readin, please confirm that these are the suggested changes or propose a different table to prevent excessive arguments after the proposal is excepted.

• Republic of China → Taiwan
• Taiwan → Taiwan (island)
• Republic of China (1912–1949) → Republic of China

All renames would occur with some changes to the articles. gidonb (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The last paragraph of Readin's proposal suggests that no renaming will occur. Instead, there will be some shifting of the content in these articles and the creation of a Taiwan (island) article. --Jiang (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear from the proposal. I would appreciate Readin's input now to prevent later misunderstandings. gidonb (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like Readin isn't active at the moment. I don't think Readin did set forth any suggestion as how to implement his proposal. But I think the move suggestions you made above seem like a reasonable way to most easily realize the proposal. As we don't know when Readin will be back, I think we should go ahead with converting this into a requested move discussion, while stressing that the content of the articles will have to be changed in the manner set forth by the initial proposal.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Freeloader! I would appreciate if you can do the conversion! gidonb (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Some sort of move must occur somewhere, and rather than shifting large chunks of information around and totally screwing with the attribution the move set shown above would definitely be the easiest way to begin it, as after that much smaller text changes would need to happen. The more difficult part would be merging the history of this current article with the information currently on the 1912-1949 article (some of which, eg economy, shouldn't be on the new ROC article). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's disingenuous to be changing a proposal after others have already made comments in support or in opposition to it. Readin stated "The articles are already close to this arrangement so not much would change. Instead we would be formalizing and clarify much of what we've already been doing. The biggest changes would be adding the big Republic of China box that currently appears on the right of this article to the Taiwan article (so people looking for information on "Taiwan" would get the understanding that the state is the Republic of China and would have information on that state immediately available) and the creation of the purely geographical Taiwan (island) page." Note the phrases "not much would change" "what we've already been doing" and "adding the ... box". This clearly implies that there will be no move of the current articles.

As I understand it, the Taiwan (island) would be purely geographical, so would need to be created from scratch. The Republic of China article would more or less be merged into Taiwan. And nowhere does it mention that the Historical Countries template used at Republic of China (1912–1949) would be transplanted here - the example given is the French Fifth Republic article which is nothing like the Republic of China (1912–1949) article.

Please "oppose" the proposal and start a new one, rather than changing it after others have already commented on it. If the "moves" are done to merely shift the page history, while fundamentally changing the content of the articles, then I don't think they are required to be mentioned here. --Jiang (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

To avoid one set of comments made upon Readin's proposal which Readin states "isn't really a merge or a move" (direct quote above) and another set of comments based on the assumption that this is really a merge or a move, I've removed the additions made to the proposal above. If consensus seems to suggest that a move/merge is needed, that will needed to be proposed separately. If we are not on the same place due to the vagueness of the initial proposal, that is for this discussion to hammer out - not for the proposal to be rewritten mid-discussion. I do hope, however, that the incoming links brought about by the move template will lead to more thorough discussion. --Jiang (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you think we are disagreeing on this, the move request I made is merely a question of procedure, not of final results. As I stressed in the move request, the articles are not to stay as they currently are, they are to be changed in exactly the way specified by the proposal. The reason I see the set of moves I requested as the easiest way to implement the proposal is that those are the article which seem closest to what the end result ought to be. The proposal says that Taiwan is to be an article about the modern entity. Republic of China is currently the article about the sovereign state, and therefore seems pretty close, although some of the pre-1949 stuff would have to be moved. Taiwan (island) is according to the proposal supposed to be about the geographical entity. Taiwan is currently, at least according to the lead, the article about the island. There is a lot of other stuff in the article too, but all in all it's not that dissimilar to an article like Ireland, which is also an article about a geographical entity. Finally there is Republic of China (1912-1949), this is definitely the one which would have to change the most, if my move request were to go through. The way I see it the new Republic of China article would have to start from something, and at least Republic of China (1912-1949) article has some of the early history. To be sure, a lot will have to be changed, for one thing the Historical Country template would definitely have to be removed, but I do intend that in the end the article should end up being as specified by the proposal, which means it will be about the military and government which used to govern mainland China and which today governs Taiwan and surrounding islands.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the proposal is not clear enough. Perhaps we should start a subsection here to discuss where specific sections of the current articles will end up. Both the "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" articles seem to contain sections that fit under the Countries Template, so it would be more like merging Republic of China into Taiwan, writing Taiwan (island) from scratch, and pruning the Republic of China article. To avoid too much overlap, I think a Taiwan (island) article should be purely on geography (like the example given), since all other aspects would be sufficiently covered by the Countries Template residing at Taiwan. I don't think moves are necessary to enact the requested changes - go back into the page history to 2003. It seems this proposal is seeking to undo what I did then, which resulted from moving content across articles, but not the articles themselves.--Jiang (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week since this was opened, I think that's long enough to shift discussion. I note your opposition to some things moves would bring, like the 1912-1949 infobox to a timespanning article, and agree. I'd be happy to open a new section specifically looking at the end that would be reached and how if you agree to look at that. I think shifting content at this point would be more of a mess than moving and then shifting. There will be far more edits post-2003 to account for than pre-2003, and it will be much easier attribution wise to keep as much on the same pages as possible. There's no difference to the readers between content shifts and page moves - they achieve the same thing if we're switching page roles - so the method used really only depends on editing considerations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the lack of specificity was intentional. I think the task of determining the location of every piece of content is a bit too much. Rather I think we should first reach an understanding of the framework for which we can discuss the location of every piece of content.

For the most part, people have been placing information related to the government in the "Republic of China" article and placing other information in the "Taiwan" article. However, in the discussions there are statements about how the "Taiwan" article is a geographic article and shouldn't have other information. There are statements about how the "Republic of China" article is about far more than just the government. But common sense tells us that, for example, the overview of the history of aborigines in Taiwan should be in the "Taiwan" article rather than the "Republic of China" article. Common sense tells us that information about the armed forces of Taiwan would be more at home in a "Republic of China" article. When we have a framework in which those decisions are easy, it will be easier to work on some of the trickier questions.

If I were to get more specific, I would say: move the "Geography" section of the "Taiwan" article to the new "Taiwan (island)" article. In the "Taiwan" article, replace the Geography section with an overview and a link to the "Taiwan (island)". Add the country infobox to the "Taiwan" article. Keep the country infobox in the "Republic of China" article (it is relevant to both articles). The introductory paragraph for "Taiwan" would need modification. Other than that, the articles are for the most part already written for what is being proposed. It's just a matter for formalizing it. Readin (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ack.. it seems for this discussion it's better to focus on what the end result should look like (as the original proposal does), and not to confuse matters by suggesting page moves, since these page moves are not simple page moves. Whether pages actually get "moved" or not, the content will have to change a lot (assuming the proposal goes through). Mlm42 (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Only considering that just recently, China, which was a disambugation page, now became the offical page for the PRC, it makes sence that we should move the Republic of China to Taiwan, strictly because it is a far more used name for the country, as per WP:COMMONNAME, even the country calls itself Taiwan. About the article which talks about the island of Taiwan, that could be moved to its own article under the name Taiwan (island). Jpech95 (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

China was never a disambiguation page. It was only more topically expansive in including Taiwan in its definition.--Jiang (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That page was effectively killed after the PRC article was moved to the China namespace. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Glad to see that there seems to be a broad consensus with a solution that doesn't seem awkward or forced. Crispus (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

* Strongest oppose. There are many discussions in real world as well as articles on Wikipedia that touch on the issue of Taiwanese independence. Apart from that, the Taipei government was recognised as China all the way to 1971 by the UN, and by western countries like the US till 1978 (and it's still China as recognised by the Holy See). And furthermore the Taipei government still controls places that aren't and have never been considered part of Taiwan by any definition. By moving the country article from Republic of China to Taiwan, it's making everything messed up and will give the notion that Taiwan is an independent country since 1949, being independent from 'Republic of China (1912-1949)' (why not 1911, by the way?). It will be very difficult to explain why there's an ongoing issue of Taiwanese independence for decades only since the presidency of Lee Teng Hui. We as editors not only have the duty to neutral point of view, by also to facts. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: crossing out comment made by banned user. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. Per WP:Commonname. --Kildor (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please justify why WP:Commonname should override WP:NPOV, given that only the latter is non-negotiable. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. as it only seems logical that because China was done the same way. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 14:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No. We don't create a second mistake as a result of the first one. We undo the first mistake. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Quiet, blocked anon. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 16:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Support per WP:COMMONNAME. HurricaneFan25 16:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Reluctant support. Due to the recent redirect of all "People's Republic of China" links to China, it unfortunately only makes sense to redirect all "Republic of China" links to Taiwan. For the consistency of the common usage of English words, this is the only logical conclusion. It totally violates neutral POV, but that is the reality of redirecting all PRC to "China". The alliance (talk)

• !!! It has been a weak and it looks like the support way overwhelms the opposition, however there seems to be some confusion as to what exactly is being supported. Two key points:
  • This is not a move. No article will be renamed, nor is it expected there will be a large movement of content. The biggest expected movement of content is that the "Geography" section of the "Taiwan" article will be moved to a newly created "Taiwan (island)" article.
  • The infobox will appear on both the "Republic of China" page and on the "Taiwan" page. The information is relevent to both topics.

The proposal clarifies the rules that most editors seem to have been following based on the current content of the existing articles. It doesn't make huge changes to the articles. For the most part, people have been placing information related to the government in the "Republic of China" article and placing other information in the "Taiwan" article. However, in the discussion histories for both pages there are statements about how the "Taiwan" article is a geographic article and shouldn't have other information. There are statements about how the "Republic of China" article is about far more than just the government. But common sense tells us that, for example, the overview of the history of aborigines in Taiwan should be in the "Taiwan" article rather than the "Republic of China" article. Common sense tells us that information about the armed forces of Taiwan would be more at home in a "Republic of China" article. When we have a framework in which those decisions are easy, it will be easier to work on some of the trickier questions.

While I would love to take the large number of supports and say we're done, I think that to be fair we need to leave the discussion open a little longer in case someone wants to change their mind. Readin (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

By Republic of China (1912–1949) → Republic of China, one would be implying ROC ceased to exist after 1949. Obviously, people living in Taiwan would oppose to this view while people on the mainland would see this as a fact.203.189.174.3 (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)