Talk:Taiwan/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Putting The Republic of China before Taiwan.

Currently the first line is: "Taiwan, officially known as The Taiwan Province of China"

I believe a more correct way is: "The Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan..."

If you look at the United States wiki article it starts as: "The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or America..." it doesn't go "The United States (U.S. or US), officially known as the United States of America (USA)..."

I'm new to editing on wiki, this is my first new section post under the "talk". Thanks for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• I like this idea. It would render moot the question about the 'official' name currently under discussion in the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Proposed Change talk sections above, since there would be no need to label a name as 'official' in the first sentence (the official names could still be addressed under Etymology). Phlar (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• I endorse the idea. PrussianOwl (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence., but of course there could be exceptions if necessary.

The MOS also says When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, so Republic of China (Taiwan) should be mentioned in the lead in some way.--Visaliaw (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tell the editors of the pages on France, Russia, China, Iran, Bolivia, Australia, etc. that they are writing their articles the wrong way round, then. The vast majority of country articles start with the shorter name. Not to mention that virtually all country articles are at those shorter names and that the name that matches the page title should come before any other name. --Khajidha (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not every article has to conform to the same format. Like the MOS states, exceptions are allowed where they make sense and this could just be one of those exceptions. Horserice (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• We had this article at Republic of China for years and it led to nothing but argument and confusion because "Republic of China" is just not commonly used in English. Putting that name first will simply increase reader confusion. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• As a simple matter of readability, sentences should start with the already established information, and introduce new information at the end of the sentence. Do not astonish the reader with something unexpected, and then explain the riddle, not in non-fiction writing anyway. This means that the title term, Taiwan, should come first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: Biography articles are written in the opposite way though, with a subject’s full name starting the article even if their common name is something else. Why do some articles on geopolitical entities use the opposite principle of starting with the common name? — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  This principle of sentence structure and readability applies generally. Do biography articles get it wrong? I think it is OK for the biography full name to be longer, as long as it contains the COMMONNAME. Eg. Madonna (entertainer). Looking around, I think Lady Gaga: Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta .... is doing it wrong. It induces a moment of confusion as astonishment when the name mismatches the title. People coming to this article think they are coming to Taiwan, it is the url and the hovertext, and the lede sentence should reflect that, for the sake of ease of reading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a good idea. As demonstrated by Khajidha above, the proposal is based on an erroneous rationale (namely the assumption that there is something incorrect with the current version). And per SmokeyJoe, the current version is more reader-friendly. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Smokeyjoe @HaeB There is something wrong with the original sentence. By making The Republic of China come first it will better inform the lay reader of the actual political status/realities of what is The Republic of China/Taiwan. Many people think Taiwan and China are completely different countries. This couldn't be further from the true. Taiwan is China. Or rather they claim to be the legitimate China the rightful political entity of China. I have met many public laypersons who are ignorant of this fact. In fact I have even met Taiwanese people themselves who are so confused about the topic that they have claimed 'I am not Chinese, I'm Taiwanese' which is utterly absurd because they are not only of Han Chinese ethnicity but their government literally claims to be 'China'. But let's keep the discussions going. Henryhe43 (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The only thing wrong here is your inability to understand that they are separate countries. And have been for over 70 years, regardless of whatever the governments claim. And one can be of Han Chinese ethnicity without being "Chinese" in the sense of what country you are from. --Khajidha (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@khajidha I never said they weren't separate countries. They definitely are two separate polities. However they both claim to be the rightful China, this is a fact. It was due to international pressure that The Republic of China began to simply refer to itself as Taiwan because after Communist China won the civil war the international community threw its support behind Communist China/People's Republic of China. Did you know that it was actually The Republic of China/Taiwan that originally had a seat on the United Nations security council? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant. In English language usage the ROC is Taiwan and the PRC is China. So a Taiwanese citizen saying they are not Chinese makes perfect sense.--Khajidha (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Khajidha HAHAHAHA. dude, a Taiwanese person saying he is not chinese is literally like a Texan saying "I'm not an American, I'm a texan". Or a english person saying "I'm not british, I'm english." On a more serious note. Taiwan is not the name of a country. The name of the country is Republic of China. Taiwan is literally just the name of the island the Republic of China moved their base of operations to after they lost the war.

Nope. It is ALSO the name used by the English speaking world for the country "Republic of China". --Khajidha (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@khajidha Yeah I know that's what they use, but the english speaking world from britain and USA on down is racist so why would i take their advice? Also I'm getting tired feel free to reply to me I'll read whatever but I won't reply till probably tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhe43 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If English speaking countries are racist, then why are you using the Racist Wikipedia? After all, the French Wikipedia is written for French speakers, the Thai Wikipedia is written for Thai speakers, and the Racist Wikipedia is written for English (racist) speakers. Also, there is nothing wrong with Han Chinese like Lee Kuan Yew (Singaporean), Penny Wong (Australian) or Andrew Yang (American) from hypothetically saying that they're "not Chinese", because contextually they are referring to nationality (國籍), not ethnicity (民族). And there is nothing wrong with a person from Scotland saying "I am Scottish, not British" or a person from Barcelona saying "I am Catalan, not Spanish". Personal identity is an individual matter, not a group matter. There are millions of Quebecois who believe that they are proudly Canadian; there are also millions of Quebecois who believe that they are not Canadians, but rather associate themselves with a Quebecois identity instead; how is this wrong? --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: Just a note that Henryhe43 has been indefinitely blocked, so they will not be able to respond for the time being. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think to check. Thanks. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

References

RfC: Taiwan, "country" or "state"

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

---

There has been much debate and no consensus formed over whether to use the term "country" or "state" when referring to Taiwan. User:Stephen Balaban - 09:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Taiwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The actual article is currently edit locked until May 24th. Let's continue discussion and have a goal of establishing editor consensus by May 24th, and then close the RfC.

• Comment It could be either, depending on which definition is used. Some qualification is required however, since its legitimacy is disputed. As with the articles on Northern Cyprus and Republic of Artsakh, I think that we should say de facto state. TFD (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Those two articles actually make rather different statements while using similar language, one says "de facto sovereign state” and the other says "breakaway de facto state.” We could theoretically describe Taiwan as the first but not the second as they aren’t breakaway. Taiwan is also on a different level size and power wise than those guys, its 100x bigger than N. Cyprus or Artsakh as well as being much older and more widely recognized. A better comparison is North Korea (I know that sounds weird but they have near identical populations, inhabit the same region of the world, are the subject of a national unification movement, and are both pariah states). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Taiwan has a functional unicameral parliament, defined borders, immigration and customs control, an economy on par with other OECD nations, universal healthcare (which the USA doesn't even have), its own currency, its own modern army, its own modern navy, its own modern air force, a former nuclear weapons program, its own passport, its own internet TLD and telephone country code, its own postal service. These are many things that actual "disputed states" like the State of Palestine, Northern Cyprus and Donetsk People's Republic are lacking in some combination or another. We really need to stop pretending on Wikipedia that a country like Taiwan is somehow equivalent to actual disputed states. Taiwan is able exert much more economic, military and political force than Palestine can ever dream of as of this current day. Like you said, a much better comparison would be to North Korea. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Taiwan’s passport is also more powerful than the PRC’s [2]... Taiwan’s passport allows visa free travel to 134 nations while China’s only allows visa free travel to 80. Kind of throws a wrench in the whole “93% of the world doesn't recognize the existence of Taiwan as a country” thing for all practical purposes. Got to say the level of genuine ignorance about Taiwan is mind-blowing sometimes. For reference North Korea’s passport offers visa free access to 49 countries. Lol just read your own spiel about passports, sorry for the redundancy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not going to happen. Ythlev (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, given that neither of those words has a single agreed upon meaning this seems like a exercise in futility... And I say that as someone with an IR degree. In certain contexts Taiwan could be both of those or neither of them, it all comes down to framing and which Polis-Sci theorists we’re going to choose to be our “wikipedia official” theorists which to my knowledge is something that has never been done nor can we really do it. Reliable sources call them both a country and a state, sometimes in the same article. Why do you think that Wikipedia will be able to come to a consensus on one of the great IR questions of our time when the real world hasn’t/can’t? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• State - this longstanding consensus driven usage works best. It was Sovereign State at times before but the term "state" was determined to best fit the situation. Country means different things in other English speaking areas of the world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see where there is consensus on the word "state" over "country", I see edit wars in the history tab. What is the definition of "country" that is used in other English speaking parts of the world? User:Stephen Balaban 20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  It's happened several times. One such discussion that ended in state is here. There are far too many problems with the word country have multiple meanings in English. The last several discussions have led to the most stable first sentence it has ever had. Non-capitalized "state" with no modifiers to cause even more problems. Why would anyone want to open up the silly can of worms when we've had pretty good stability for so long? There will always be those who disagree strongly one way or the other but "state" has worked as a compromise pretty darned well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Just because we've had relative stability doesn't mean we should perpetually kick the can down the road to visit at a later time. This is an open issue that'll require resolution sooner or later; why not start now? It's been eight years since the 2012 article move, we've already had enough time to let the dust settle. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  It's not kicking the can down the road. There are reasons why some want "sovereign state" some want "State" some want "state" and some want "country." When it was looked at in the past the best choice on balance, on stability, on compromise, on dictionary meaning, and on English usage in all English speaking nations, was to use "state." That is why it has been stable for so long... most readers and editors find it their first or second choice and not their last choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, feel free to add to this list of reliable sources that refer to Taiwan as a "country" and a list of reliable sources that refer to Taiwan as a "state". It seems like "state" is a word that is rarely ever used to refer to Taiwan. The divide certainly seems to fall on the PRC POV = "not a country / province / part of PRC" and the ROC POV = "independent country / sovereign state / independent state / not part of PRC". Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state and is widely referred to as a country by many reputable sources. There is not going to be unanimous consensus on this because of the inherent politics involved but I think it's confusing for Wikipedia readers for editors to decide to refer to Taiwan as a "state" and then be forced to refer to all other countries as "states" to maintain internal consistency within the article and project. Nobody refers to PRC as a state, why does this article? User:Stephen Balaban 20:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Source List Tag [DD9GA];

  Taiwan referred to as "country": [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

  Taiwan referred to as "state”: [24]

  Taiwan referred to both as "country" and "state":

  Taiwan referred to as "independent country", "independent state", or "sovereign state": [25]

  Taiwan referred to as "not a state": [26]

  Taiwan referred to as "not a country" and "sovereign country" in the same article: [27]

  Taiwan referred to as neither "country" or "state" but as “self-ruled”:[28][29][30]

  Just “Taiwan":[31][32][33][34][35][36][37]

  Taiwan referred to as an “island” (outside of the explicitly geographical sense):[38][39][40][41]

  Taiwan referred to as a “nation" or "island nation": [42][43]

  Taiwan referred to as an “independent republic":[44]

• de facto state per what TDF said. The sovereignty of Taiwan is disputed by 93% of the world U.N. countries.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

UN countries are not WP:RS though, for our purposes they’re irrelevant. TBH I thought there wouldn't be as clear a media consensus as there does actually appear to be consensus among WP:RS to call them “country." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The argument that "the sovereignty of Taiwan is disputed by 93% of the world U.N. countries" is extremely weak, because it oversimplifies international politics and ignores many important intricacies that exist beneath the surface.

Take western countries such as the United States and its allies, for example. Western countries not officially recognising Taiwan is more of a formality than anything else, they need to maintain decent relations with China given that they represent one sixth of global population. In reality, it's a little bit more complicated than that, and most countries continue to de facto deal with Taiwan on a country-to-country basis, but play around with their words in a game of pretend.

A Taiwanese passport can get you visa-free (or visa-on-arrival) entry into 149 countries, including the United States, Canada, European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. By comparison, a Chinese passport only has visa-free access to 71 countries, most of them in Africa and Central Asia. If western countries didn't have healthy de facto country-to-country relations with Taiwan, would this be possible?

As a key producer of semiconductors, Taiwan continues to de facto trade with the majority of countries in the world, including countries that allegedly do not recognise the existence of Taiwan. Taiwan can manufacture computer components that China lacks the ability to make (even the China Daily, official English language mouthpiece of the Community Party of China, admits this); there are only three companies in the world that can manufacture high-end semiconductors: TSMC (Taiwan), Intel Corporation (United States) and Samsung (South Korea); down-the-line companies such as AMD, nVidia, Apple and Huawei get 100% of their high-end chips from TSMC and Samsung. Conversely, Taiwan also de facto purchases billions of dollars worth of military weaponry and equipment from the United States, including F-16V fighters, M1 Abrams tanks, and Kidd-class destroyers, despite not being officially recognised by the US. Would any of this even be possible if Taiwan wasn't a de facto country with de facto relations with other countries (that allegedly don't recognise it)?

Long story short, countries de facto recognise the de facto existence of Taiwan as a country in reality, while playing roundabout mind games to appease the PRC. Membership of the United Nations, and official diplomatic recognition by UN countries, are not useful indicators of whether a country is sovereign or not. In Wikipedia, we should be representing the factual circumstances of things, and in some cases the facts will stray from official government positions. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• State. I mean, they're really the same thing, but state sounds more academic. Ythlev (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yet nobody in academia refers to Taiwan as a state they refer to it as a country: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=Taiwan other countries can you point to any sources reliable or encyclopedic that do not refer to Taiwan as a country? User:Stephen Balaban 23:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I meant the word. And yes there are. Check out the article. Ythlev (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country. Every available source refers to Taiwan as a country. Yes it’s disputed by PRC. Yes, PRC has a position in the UN Security Council. But Wikipedia articles should have NPOV and be in line with reliable sources in how it refers to political entities. User:Stephen Balaban 23:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country as a first choice, sovereign state (and not merely "state") as a second backdrop. While I understand the original intentions of the editors establishing consensus back in 2012 of using "state" as a concise and unbiased way to refer to a sovereign state polity (and they're not wrong, by the way), the reality of the situation is that the majority of English-speaking readers without technical background knowledge often confuse the two concepts of a state as a polity (i.e. France, Germany, Republic of Korea), and a state as an administrative subdivision (i.e. Missouri, Queensland, Arunachal Pradesh). This is evident by the numerous talk page threads raised between 2012 and 2018 by confused editors asking why Taiwan is a "state" like California or New York. Switching to the phrasing of "country", or making the phrasing more precise by including "sovereign", would undoubtedly alleviate this confusion amongst readers. While semantically there is a slight technical difference between the concepts of country, nation and sovereign state, again, in reality, the majority of laypersons use these three terms interchangeably, and this is demonstrated by third-party reliable sources such as CNN, BBC and Reuters who also use these three terms interchangeably. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Most reliable sources use it, and it’s widely understood by the general public who are, after all, our primary target audience. Phlar (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Reasoning per Benlisquare and Phlar. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Earlier I didn't think that there would be a clear consensus in WP:RS usage and we would have to get nitty gritty with theorists and dueling papers. I was wrong, there is clear consensus among WP:RS to call Taiwan a country. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• de facto state or de facto sovereign state, followed by state. None of the sources under Taiwan referred to as a "country" above are considered scholarly sources that would meet similar criteria that exist for WP:MEDRS. Even the "layperson" BBC cited above opens with China sees Taiwan as a breakaway province that will eventually be part of the country again, but many Taiwanese want a separate nation.. The CNBC source above also only mentions "country" in a passing quotation or in the context of the ROC, e.g. President Tsai Ing-wen says they are already an independent country called the Republic of China, its official name. The Diplomat also notes that Tsai and other officials also make that distinction. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: when you find a source in the wrong category don’t delete it, move it to the appropriate category. Deleting it outright violates talk page etiquette. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS exists because there has been over 15 years worth of collaboration, discussion, and consensus building on Wikipedia amongst editors specialising in medical-related topics, which has slowly built up what we see as the resulting guideline today. A comparison with WP:MEDRS is a false equivalence because an analogue for international relations articles does not exist. If you feel that a WP:MEDRS equivalent set of guidelines is required for the topic of international relations on Wikipedia, consider starting off community-wide discussions to establish consensus on how the guideline should be written. Otherwise, what you're suggesting isn't actually held up by the community of contributors in the same manner WP:MEDRS is. Based on current precedent, the sources you have mentioned above fall within the green category on WP:RSP, meaning that unless there are unambiguous factual inaccuracies in those references, their use doesn't fall outside of WP:RS policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Taiwan vs. Republic of China It's worth noting that Taiwan, according to its constitution, is a province of China and it has not declared independence. It's government was the remnant of the government of the Republic of China which claimed mainland China. So there is no source that Taiwan is a de jure state. TFD (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you could say that that constitution is the source for its statehood, but that the common name for the state has changed in response to the reduction in effective territory. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Why does a constitution written by a bunch of Mainland Chinese men (not Taiwanese) on the mainland of China in 1947 matter, and how does this constitution represent reality? What about the 1991 and 2005 amendments to the constitution which de facto recognise "Taiwan" (in legalese designated as the "Free area of the Republic of China") as a distinct political entity to the mainland? What about the ROC President's numerous and repeated remarks since 2016 that her administration considers the ROC/Taiwan to be "already an independent country" to China, and therefore does not need to "declare independence"? Why does Taiwan need to declare independence from the PRC (established in 1949) when the PRC has never been to Taiwan (brief United States occupation, followed by ROC administration commencing on October 25, 1945)?

Many portions of the ROC constitution are vestigial organs of ROC governance, and the name of the country has not been amended for a very good reason: the Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China codifies into law that any official constitutional amendment to change the name of the country to "Republic of Taiwan" is casus belli for military invasion. In reality (aka de facto), ROC (Taiwan) is already an independent entity to the PRC; officially establishing this reality into de jure law would risk war, so what would be the benefit in doing so? Arguing that "well actually, the law says otherwise" has many logical flaws if you conveniently choose to ignore the context behind those laws. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

One additional thing I should mention: You know that 1947 constitution you're talking about? Did you know that it claims Mongolia as the de jure territory of Taiwan? In reality, though, Taiwan has de facto officially recognised Mongolia as a real country in 2002 under the administration of president Chen Shui-bian. Taiwan and Mongolia now officially have healthy and normal country-to-country relations, with free flow of tourists and students, alongside plenty of economic trade, and the ROC constitution has still not been amended to reflect this fact (because doing so would mean that China is legally obligated to invade). Why was establishing diplomatic relations with Mongolia not so difficult, unlike mainland China? It's because Mongolia doesn't have 2,500 short range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan, unlike a certain other country. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't have explained it better. The government of Taiwan considers itself to be part of the country of China, not a country in itself. China and every other country in the world also recognize Taiwan as a province of China. So it is de jure part of China and de facto a self-governing state. The OR about the Montevideo Convention should be ignored because it is only one of the theories of statehood and is a guideline to help experts determine what is a state but is not definitive. It was an agreement between the U.S. and Latin American states in the 1930s, not a UN convention. TFD (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you think benlisquare’s comment here supports your position you don’t undsertand what they said. Can you also chill with the massive unsupported statements like "The government of Taiwan considers itself to be part of the country of China, not a country in itself.” while complaining about OR? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The government of Taiwan considers itself to be part of the country of China, not a country in itself. - Officially, both in practice and in policy, not since 2016 when the administration of president Tsai Ing-wen made it the official government stance to reject the 1992 Consensus, as I've mentioned. Even prior to that, Taiwan has ceased to actively pursue its territorial claims to mainland China and Mongolia during the presidential administration of Lee Teng-hui, they just didn't make it an official stance at the time. The Sinophilic old guard from the generation of Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo with their rosy dreams of militarily retaking mainland China by force? They're either all dead, or 80 year old men withering away in nursing homes. They do not represent the present, nor the future, of Taiwan. I'm not sure how you've managed to read between my lines to come to that conclusion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR, see the article in The Atlantic: "The ROC constitution, meanwhile, still claims Taiwan, China, Mongolia, and the entire South China Sea as its territory."[45] Whether or not the current government holds that position, it has been unable or unwilling to change the law, hence use of the term de jure, which is Latin for by law. On the other hand, de facto means "in fact:" "practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws." TFD (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Law =/= Constitution, but I'l focus on the argument not the errors. Can you tell me why ROC/Taiwan hasn't changed their constitution? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're saying disequals constitution, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. TFD (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Does not equal, not “disequals” which is not a word in the english language. Answer the question. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to ask rhetorical questions, this is not a debating club. If you want to make a point about why the Republic of China has not changed its constitution, just say it and what relevance it has to whatever point you are trying to make. TFD (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Healthy debate/discussion is important to establishing consensus, as we already appear to have done so I will digress. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Even whether the constitution claims authority over all of China is under dispute. The constitution merely says the territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries. Some legislators argued that mainland China is not included in the "existing national boundaries" mentioned in the constitution, and asked the Judicial Yuan, who has legal power to interpret the Constitution, to clarify this issue. The judical yuan denied to interpret what "existing national boundaries" include, saying this is a significant political question and beyond the reach of judicial review. The dispute has not yet been resolved since then.[46]--Visaliaw (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment common name is a title policy. It has nothing to do with the content. And as CaradhrasAiguo pointed out above, sources don't call it a country. And even as a title, the COMMONNAME says Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered.

Saying it is a country is saying that it is a de jure state.

Taiwan is only considered as a sovereign state by 13 countries. The rest of the world doesn't recognize Taiwan's sovereignty. That's 93% of the world. It is not a member of the U.N.. Taiwan is a de facto state not a de jure state.[47] It's status is worse than Kosovo. We should provide accurate information. The common name argument is irrelevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"Saying it is a country is saying that it is a de jure state." Really? I bet a lot of people in Scotland would be glad to hear that, as Scotland is often called a country but recently failed to become a sovereign state of its own. --Khajidha (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That's another definition. Scotland has a distinct ethnicity and was a sovereign state before it was merged with England. Taiwan was a province of China. No one referred to West Berlin as a country when it was a separate political unit not part of either of the two Germanies. TFD (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

My point still stands. You cannot make an unequivocal statement that "country" means something if there are cases where it explicitly doesn't mean that. The fact that Taiwan's history is different from Scotland's is not relevant to the point. West Berlin is even less relevant. --Khajidha (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan was a part of the Japanese Empire not a province of China before they were merged with the ROC against the will of the inhabitants at the end of WWII. Scotland also doesn't have a distinct ethnicity any more than Taiwan does, both are primarily inhabited by people who do not share the majority of their heritage with the people who inhabited their lands 2,000 years before them. Also just FYI the merger of Scotland and England happened in 1707 (and they were ruled by the English from 1603)... So Scotland was a sovereign state (even though the definition didnt exist and cant really be applied in hindsight) 400 years ago, not so sure what your point is. You seem to be making a lot of historical and logical errors in your arguments. Also just FYI West Berlin was administered both formally and informally by West Germany and was for legal purposes considered part of West Germany. I know of no such power who effects similar administration of Taiwan except the Taiwanese Government. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

[Very off topic, but the Scots were not ruled by the English from 1603. The Scottish King inherited the English throne in 1603, but the states remained separate (very, they fought wars even) until 1707.] Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You’re right, I should have said Scottish sovereignty became truly disputed in 1603. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Also FYI the Japanese were the first to control the entire island of Taiwan, none of the previous colonial or indigenous powers had ever controlled the entirety (or even the majority) of the island before the Japanese. Most of Taiwan by area was controlled by Taiwanese indigenous peoples up until about 1900, so they beat the Scots in the global game of “resist the foreign invaders" by a full 300 years. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Taiwan became a province (de jure and de facto) of the Republic of China upon its annexation and is considered a province under the constitution of the republic. However, the government of the Republic of China lost control of the mainland and in 1971, the United Nations recognized the Peoples's Republic of China as the sole national government of mainland China and Taiwan. So neither the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China, the local government of Taiwan, or the countries that recognize one or the other of the competing claims consider it to be a sovereign state. TFD (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"So neither the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China, the local government of Taiwan, or the countries that recognize one or the other of the competing claims consider it to be a sovereign state." This bears a distinct resemblance to the fecal matter of an adult male bovine. It is splitting hairs over the common name. The constitution of the Republic of China declares that it is a sovereign state. Those countries that recognize the ROC consider it a sovereign state. The fact that said state is commonly called Taiwan instead of China is irrelevant to that fact. --Khajidha (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I respect your right to make any argument you want but thats just not true. I’m particularly confused by your assertion that the Republic of China and the "local government of Taiwan” are currently separate entities which agree that Taiwan is not a sovereign state. Can you explain whats leads you to believe this? Also just FYI any argument from the ROC constitution is a nonstarter for you, if it has a valid constitution its a state and a country and if its not either of those it doesn't have a valid constitution so its irrelevant. Pick one, you’re doing whatever is most convenient for your argument, not what is logically consistent. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were two different things. The government of the Republic of China claims authority over all of China but de facto exercises local control over Taiwan only. Frank Chiang, who is an expert in U.S. - Taiwan - China relations, phrases it better: "Taiwan is not a state because there is no government constituting the government of the state of Taiwan. Although there is a governing authority in Taiwan -- the ROC government -- it is a government of China in exile." ("Sadly, Taiwan is still not a state" Taipei Times, 2005). TFD (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thats from a *2005* Taipei Times *editorial.* Here is an equally authoritative opinion (that of a senior Taiwanese legislator) found in an article published in the Taiwan News yesterday: "Taiwan acknowledges the existence of the People’s Republic of China and its sovereignty over the areas it controls, while the Taiwanese government has authority over its main island and Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, as well as their adjacent territorial waters and airspace.” Taiwan does not appear to lay claim to the entirety of China anymore. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: This RFC discussion has nothing to do with the title of the article, it is about whether the wording of the lead paragraph should use the term "state" or "country" to describe the political entity; discussion regarding whether Taiwan or Republic of China is the WP:COMMONNAME is off-topic. Nobody here has even mentioned the WP:COMMONNAME policy until you brought it up. If you have objections to the name of the article being Taiwan, consider raising a separate WP:RM discussion to Republic of China; otherwise, you are merely detracting from the discussion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the state/country/island/entity/blob/sweet potato’s common name was settled more than a decade ago as Taiwan and there still appears to be no contest[48]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A little late, but while re-reading older discussion, this particular claim caught my eye: It's status is worse than Kosovo. This dubious claim couldn't be any further from the truth; Kosovo passport holders have visa-free access to 41 countries, which is even less than Chinese (PRC) passport holders, let alone Taiwan; there are a significant number of sub-Saharan African nations with more travel rights bestowed upon their citizens compared to Kosovo. Again, comparing the two is the utter epitome of apple/orange comparisons, the claim simply doesn't make sense. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - One of the reasons in past discussions and RfCs that it was settled on the now long-standing "state" was because of the various definitions among English speaking nations. We have talked about states, States, sovereign states, nations, nation-states, countries, etc. Most had problems fitting in the Taiwan situation.

  With a sovereign state we needed a state with its own institutions and populations that has a permanent population, territory, and government. It needs an internationally recognized government that provides public services and police power and has the right to make treaties, wage war, and take other actions on behalf of its people. No other state should have power over the country's territory.

  With a nation we needed a large group of people who inhabit a specific territory and are connected by history, culture, or another common items. Places like Sicily, Catalonia, and Quebec.

  With a nation-state we had to be show a cultural group (a nation) that is also a state or a sovereign state. Iceland or Japan.

  To be a state it needed to be a territory with its own institutions and populations. Greenland, England. It could also be geographic sections of sovereign states, like California or Tasmania.

  Country has all kinds of meanings from a state, a sovereign state, or nation-state. Usually it's a sovereign state but you also run into places like wine country. The UK uses the term country to define England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

  All of these have some issues with the special case of Taiwan, and no matter what one you chose you'll find unhappy editors bent on removing the term. Viewpoints run deep on this issue. The term state was determined to be the most all-encompassing, safest, term to use that would see the least amount of edit-wars. I do think it achieved that purpose. It can certainly be changed to country but I see it as having nowhere near the stability that "state" has had, especially when places such as the United States look at country=sovereign state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t necessarily agree with your definitions but if you want to use those then Taiwan is a sovereign state, it checks all those boxes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that adding qualifiers like "sovereign state" is a bad idea especially when the sovereignty is in dispute by the PRC. Of course Taiwan is clearly de facto sovereign but that's another story. One important thing to remember is that some of these "unhappy editors" are trying to push a certain POV (whether it's PRC or ROC). I think the main point with opening this RfC is to answer the question: "Why does wikipedia seem to use a different term to describe Taiwan than every other mainstream English-language reliable source?" User:Stephen Balaban 07:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Take no action here. The distinction between a "country" and a "state" which this discussion is trying to clarify is not meaningful to, or is likely to be misunderstood by, many speakers of American English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The same applies to British English. The overlap between the words "country" and "state" is greater than their distinction. We should simply acknowledge that the world is messy and not all territories or regimes fit into simply defined categories. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country or simply state. Adding de facto is an unnecessary and incorrect use of a Latin expression. A state cannot exist de facto because once the factual conditions of statehood are met (population, territory and effective government), it is a de jure state. It would be akin to describing the Sun as being a de facto star: it's just a star. Calls to add de facto reflect a misunderstanding on behalf of many users of what the word state means. Île flottante (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country - Agree with Benlisquare. Country can be applied as a neutral and non-ambiguous word here. Jediting1 (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Summary of Opinions So far I've counted the following opinions: country 7, (state or no action) 2, de facto state 2. Could people in the state / de facto state / sovereign state camps please post reliable sources that refer to Taiwan as a state / de facto state? You can edit the list located at tag [DD9GA]. There are many more reliable sources that use the term country, please add some that refer to it as a state. Stephen Balaban 17:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I suppose you're counting me in the "state or no action" group, but I just can't make sense of what we are disputing here. Is France a country? Yes. Is France a state? Yes. Is France a sovereign state? Yes. So being a state does not preclude being a country, and vice versa. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The discussion isn't aiming to debate what Taiwan is, because that would be an extremely subjective and open-ended question with no real answer. The question being asked is what word should be used within the lead paragraph of this article - "country", "state", or (other); as far as I'm concerned, it's a pretty binary (or ternary) question. We've had eight years to come up with a consensus on what wording to use, and still have not been able to, hence why this discussion is taking place. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

China opposes X Taiwan Opposed Y, so we need Z. Trying to not treat this as my inclination wants to why not "realm"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

China and Taiwan should not determine what words the English language can use. --Khajidha (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the problem is where I come from they are more or less synonymous. So there is not one I have a preference for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• As I said lat time this is just semantics (polite version).Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Agree with Benlisquare that this is clearer to readers, and it's a neutral term to use which is backed by a majority of sources. the wub "?!" 15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. As Benlisquare points out, "state" leads to confusion with the American governmental structure. I do not think the distinction de facto vs de jure is meaningful or helpful here. And it seems to be what the sources call it. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Island country I looked at some other cases to see what they had:

Cuba – country

Cyprus – island country

Ireland – island

New Zealand – sovereign island country

Singapore – sovereign city state and island country

Sri Lanka – island country

United Kingdom – sovereign country

All of these places have a unique history and all were part of some larger polity at some time in their history. While there is no uniform pattern, the word "state" gets almost no usage and the phrase "island country" is most common. Its usage in this case too seems quite reasonable. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson:, just a quick note, you have linked the wrong page for Ireland. That is the page for the entire island called Ireland, and not the page for the country called Ireland. The page for the country is here: Republic of Ireland, where it is described as a country. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country or Island Country I found these the most in the sources I found. There were, of course, sources that listed it as a state of East Asia, however a fair majority of them are either based on, or copied verbatim off of Wikipedia's current definition. —dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 02:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country or sovereign state. It is not a state of a larger country as some like to imply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Since 1) this is how other entities (Japan, Mainland China, etc.) are called. Granted, it is a "mostly unrecognized state/country". Note the Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states that is subcategory to both Category:Countries by status and Category:States with limited recognition. Anyway, 2) on official English page/[49], it refers to itself as a "country", but also as a "state" [50]. But count gives only one instance of state as self-reference, compared to 5-6 for country. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Strong agreement with Benlisquare's points. NomadicNom (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country or sovereign state because governments aren't RSes. It doesn't matter how many countries officially recognize Taiwan, it matters what the best reliable sources say, and they treat Taiwan as a country or sovereign state. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• largely unrecognized state - it actually does matter what other states say, in fact for whether or not a state is a state they matter most. A state is a state when other states say it is a state is the most readily understood phrasing I have seen. Would also add claims sovereignty over the territory of the PRC and exercises sovereignty over the island of Taiwan. nableezy - 00:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  The problem is sourcing. Almost all sources use "country." By definition it is simply a state, since country can mean anything in all the different English variations and usually means "sovereign state", but sourcing Taiwan as a "state" is a big problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• country everyone but the PRC and those who feel the need to defer to them seems to consider it a country; they have their reasons, but their reasons are irrelevant to Wikipedia . Taiwan acts as an independent country in all respects, and is referred to by neutral observers as such. DGG ( talk ) 11:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Taiwan is a country by any reasonable definition, and reliable sources describe it as such. If the PRC disagree that's their prerogative, but Wikipedia is not bound by their claim. Although other countries have withheld de jure recognition of Taiwan, they've given it de facto recognition by maintaining diplomatic relations, embassies (even if they're called something else), granting it membership (or something equivalent to membership by another name) of international organisations etc. Modest Genius ^talk 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country Taiwan (ROC) has its own government, currency, passport, military, and economy. It has strong unofficial diplomatic and economic ties with all major countries in the world through de facto embassies (a.k.a. representative offices) and trade. It continues to have formal ties with 15 sovereign states. Unlike Macau or Hong Kong, the Taiwanese government is not under the jurisdiction of the PRC government and freely conducts its own governance of Taiwan. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country It is officially recognized by 15 states, it has its own immigration, currency, identity, democracy, etc. etc. all associated with a nation state, and de-facto it operates as a country. Kenji1987 (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country Despite not being recognized by a majority of other countries, I'd agree with Kenji1987, and numerous others here. Taiwan has all the aspects of a country mentioned above, and should be referred to as such. –NorthwestPassage ^talk 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• State. While Taiwan looks like a country in all aspects, it is still politically a province of China. Now many people dispute this, so since a state represents a political entity, I believe it is better to refer to Taiwan as a state. This acknowledges the political self-governance of Taiwan while at the same time remains politically correct. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

State is not equal to province. Acknowledging Taiwan as a state is not equal to acknowledging Taiwan as a province of China. An independent nation can be referred to as a state. More appropriately, state is a synonym of government. We sometimes say "Member states of the EU". This doesn't mean England and Germany are provinces of the European Union; rather, this means that England and Germany have their own governments. The same can be applied to Taiwan. As a Chinese, we refer to Guangdong as "Guangdong Province", never as "Guangdong State". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that a country is largely synonymous with a state: "A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state," (from article on country) and "[state] referring to an organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory." No doubt Taiwan is exhibiting sovereignty over its land; hence it is a state. Is it a country? Disputed. Is it a state (does it have control over its own land)? I find it pretty hard to dispute this statement. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually "country" is largely synonymous with "sovereign state", which Taiwan is not. That has always been the problem with the nomenclature we use here. What is most used in sourcing deviates from the actual definition. Hence the quandary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Scotland is referred to as a country, sometimes even a nation, while not being sovereign. "State", "country", and "nation" are all the same thing, none of which have universal definitions. Ythlev (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Country gets multiple vague definitions as I had said previously. England, Scotland, and Wales are often called countries in British English. But State, country, and nation are certainly not the same thing at all per standard definitions. But the term country is mostly used to describe a sovereign state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What are the "standard definitions" exactly? And how is it that English of Britain, where it originated, is not standard? Ythlev (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of that was discussed previously at this comment. Why isn't British English used as a definition throughout the world? That's what your asking? I have no idea. If you go by that reasoning Taiwan usually uses American English. In my PolySci classes we had different definitions for state, sovereign state, nation, and country. Country was the most frowned upon because of it's vagueness and many meanings. Sort of like you have turkey vultures, black vultures, and condors, but they also get a commonly used term of buzzards. Country was like buzzards in my classes... used a lot but vague and less precise. Maybe a lot because in British English country gets used for England and Scotland while the sovereign state is the UK. There are many complexities is usage even within the same geographical area, and from country to country it's even worse. It doesn't bother me one bit if this article changes from state to country, nation, or even sovereign state since Wikipedia works in mysterious consensus ways. I was only pointing out that sources and definitions differ in this case, and that I think "state" fits Taiwan best and has been the most stable term used on Wikipedia. Other articles will change if we change the terminology here. That's fine, but it's why I listed this rfc at Wikipedia centralized discussion so we could get a better amalgam of eyes on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Country was like buzzards in my classes... used a lot but vague and less precise. This contradicts what you said that "country" is largely synonymous with "sovereign state". If we are going with common usage, the word "state" usually refers to a US state. I agree that we should "state", but I think your reasoning is a bit weird. Ythlev (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Not quite as i was summarizing a previous discussion. In class it was frowned upon because of it's vagueness and buzzard-like equivalence. But when it is used in the context of what is likely to happen here, it far and away tends to be interpreted as "Sovereign State" rather than just "state." It is why I thought it would create more problems in maintaining the article from vandalism even though it is more readily sourcable. In the US, state more readily means a US state. Not in the rest of the English speaking world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion Taiwan isn't a nation by any reasonable standard. Hence a country is practically equal to a state, but calling it a country generates more controversy. State is the less controversial synonym for country. IMO this is not a political discussion; we are not arguing country vs. province. A state is very similar to a country in terms of definition, but the word state is more neutral in this respect. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 04:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on pre-existing precedent on Wikipedia, we refer to Israel, Singapore, North Korea, South Korea, United Kingdom and South Sudan as countries within the lead paragraph rather than states; all of these meet your usual definitions of states. To make Taiwan the exception would be a double standard, and thus even more of a WP:NPOV violation. The argument that using state would be more neutral becomes a moot point unless there is a consensus-based Wikipedia-wide shift to change the wording of every single sovereign state article's lead paragraph from "country" to "state". Furthermore, if you are concerned about neutrality in regards to the One China issue, then would you be in favour of changing the lead paragraph of China to use "state" instead of "country"? Why is the People's Republic of China allowed to be called a country, instead of a state? --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Singapore, UK, North/South Korea's independence is universally accepted. However, Taiwan independence is not universally accepted, Even among the Taiwanese, from last year's election over 40% Taiwanese voted for Han Kuo-Yu, opponents of the independence movement. There is little global consensus over whether Taiwan can be considered a country, but I guess by nearly all standards Taiwan can always be called a state. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 05:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is "little global consensus over whether Taiwan can be considered a country", then can you explain why the overwhelming majority of English-language news media publications refer to Taiwan as a country, and not as a state? --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Because "country" is plain English and a more common word whereas "state" is more academic. I think using the academic word encourages readers to learn more about the topic. Ythlev (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) putting English aside, how many of these sources come from America or the EU? English language speakers account for just about a billion people, barely more than Chinese speakers. America and many EU countries (esp. America from 2016 up till the present) are biased against China, and hence many of these sources bias against the PRC. The majority of countries supporting PRC don't speak English (though not necessarily Chinese). Wikipedia wants a worldwide view of subjects, hence articles on non-English-speaking countries exist and quote non-English sources. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with individual editors' perceptions of media bias; Wikipedia cares about what meets Wikipedia policy. Based on WP:RSP, these news sources are not considered biased or unreliable. If you are opposed to this community decision, consider starting a new discussion at WP:PUMP and get the Wikipedia community onboard with labeling the BBC, Reuters, etc. as unreliable sources.

Also, your suggestion regarding non-English sources is silly, because not all languages use the same cognates in nomenclature - English has the words "nation", "country" and "state" as distinct words. Chinese equates two of these as 國家, and one of these as either 民族 or 國家 depending on context. Given that this is an English-language nomenclature problem, it only makes sense to make a rational decision based on English-language sources. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying BBC is unreliable. What I'm saying is that not every reliable source agrees with each other on such contentious issues. Democrat sources might say that Trump made a bad move in a policy, and a Republican source mentioning the same policy might highly praise it. They can both be considered RSs, yet we must exercise caution. I'll continue my reply soon. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Cont: This has departed from its original language nomenclature problem into a political problem. And I'm pretty sure English isn't the only language that discerns between "country" and "state". My conclusion is, still a good number of people consider Taiwan (ROC) as under China, and do not consider Taiwan a country. It is this subtle difference between "country" (politically incorrect) and "state" (politically better) that marks the difference, and I am going with the latter. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

over 40% Taiwanese voted for Han Kuo-Yu, opponents of the independence movement - this is a logical fallacy based upon false equivalence, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the democratic process. Participants of elections are not single-issue voters, and there are many reasons why someone might vote for a KMT candidate that are unrelated to the issue of Chinese reunification; Christian groups opposed to same-sex marriage traditionally vote KMT; historically KMT governments have provided more social services for Taiwanese aborigines, and therefore they are more likely to vote for KMT candidates; those who oppose closer economic ties with Japan vote KMT rather than DPP; those opposed to Hokkien language education and funding Hokkien public broadcasting vote KMT. Equating Han Kuo-yu voters with opponents of Taiwanese nationhood and/or supporters of Chinese reunification is a fallacy of the undistributed middle. Furthermore, the democratic process does not demand 100% of the population agreeing on every single public policy; only 51% is required for a simple majority. Demanding that the entire population be onboard with policy is impractical and silly, lawmakers would never ever get any bills passed. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Benlisquare "According to opinion poll conducted in Taiwan by Mainland Affairs Council in 2019, 27.7% of respondents supported Taiwan's independence: 21.7% said that status quo has to be maintained for now but Taiwan should become independent in the future, while 6% said that independence must be declared as soon as possible. 31% respondents supported the current situation as it is, and 10.3% agreed to unification with the mainland with 1.4% saying that it should happen as soon as possible.[37]" from Taiwan independence. This shows that 33.7% support Taiwan independence now while 31 10.3 1.4=42.7% doesn't support Taiwan independence, hence the lack of consensus among the Taiwanese to declare independence. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

By claiming that the 31% of status quo adherents who favour the current situation of de facto independence under the name ROC without formally declaring a Republic of Taiwan as part of the "anti-independence" camp, you're essentially poisoning the well here. A significant portion of the population opposes closer relations with mainland China, however do not wish to amend the constitution to formally declare the name of the nation as "Republic of Taiwan" because they do not wish to see war as a consequence of the 2005 anti-secession law of the PRC. Currently, opinion polls show that approval rates for the KMT are currently at 9 percent, while Tsai Ing-wen's approval rate sits at 75 percent. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as they don't want Taiwan to become a country, they can be considered "anti-independence". The status quo is that Taiwan is a state and not a country. The wish for Taiwan to reunite with China (11%) is equivalent to seeing Taiwan as a province of China. I guess a province, under the definitions, is much closer to "state" than to "country". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess ultimately at this point, we may as well agree to disagree. My worldview clearly doesn't match yours, and your view of the world is significantly different to mine. I certainly disagree with your statement that The status quo is that Taiwan is a state and not a country, given that Taiwan demonstrates more characteristic hallmarks of a country than a place like Serbia, and that keeping the Taiwan article in line with that of other countries both meets with Wikipedia's policies, and provides a better understanding for the majority of layperson readers who use Wikipedia. You are certainly entitled to maintain your position, however I definitely won't be changing mine. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Even now Taiwan has not declared official independence. While the DPL is pushing for independence, and leaders are pushing to single out Taiwan from China, even the DPL has not declared Taiwan to be independent from China. Yes, the US is blowing Taiwan independence all over the place, signing regulations attempting to establish Taiwan and even HK as independent countries. The UN deemed the PRC to be the "sole legitimate government of China", and hence the UN considered that the PRC had, in some sense, a higher status than the ROC. Talking about WP:NPOV, to put it shortly there is no NPOV in politics. Simply speaking, I can't see a way to neutrally report global politics (with all the US drama), hence this discussion. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 06:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state, we are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan." - Tsai Ing-wen, January 2020. Why does a country formed in 1912 need to declare independence from a country formed in 1949? Also, you do have URLs to any sources which prove that the United States is attempting to push for Hong Kong's independence? --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Why does a country formed in 1912 need to declare independence from a country formed in 1949? – United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 stipulates that the PRC is the sole legitimate gov't of China, which was an internatianal agreement which Taiwan is trying to reverse. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:38, 13 May 2020

The United Nations is not an authoritative power. If the UN wishes to further the fantasy that a PRC citizen can vote in ROC elections, be protected by ROC soldiers, and be treated by the ROC healthcare system, and that an ROC citizen can vote in PRC elections, be protected by PRC soldiers, and buy real estate property within PRC cities, then that's the UN's own perogative. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

argument reinstating: the above replies are becoming too difficult to understand, but right now Taiwan has quite limited recognition as a country. Given that "state" is a less controversial word than either :country" or "province" (as it looked like 8 months ago), the word choice of "state" is the preferred one. We don't care what China's take on this (i.e. it is a province), but we also don't care about the Taiwanese's views on this as per neutrality. Right now, countries are pushing hard to politically make Taiwan more independent from China, but so far, even among those who dislike China, Taiwan is not yet accepted as a country. Until then, it should be the less controversial "state". This is not in contradiction with the other wording examples (Singapore, North/South Korea, UK) given largely because they have been accepted by the United Nations. Taiwan, right now, is not really recognised as a country. Only 15 countries, for now, recognise Taiwan as an independent country. "State" has both meaning and is a bit more ambiguous, which is in this case preferred due to the political sensitivity of this issue. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that "state" is a less controversial word - "State" is not less controversial, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this 600 kilobyte discussion on Wikipedia.
Right now, countries are pushing hard to politically make Taiwan more independent from China - This is your own personal fantasy, the future of Taiwan lies upon the decisions of the Taiwanese people, and the Taiwanese people only. The evil American empire isn't pointing a gun to Taiwan and forcing them to become independent.
Only 15 countries, for now, recognise Taiwan as an independent country. - Only 15 countries, for now, do not pretend that Taiwan is not a de facto country, while continuing to sell Taiwan billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks and missiles. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

For one, "state" is less controversial when compared to "country". The PRC would be more comfortable with Taiwan being called a "state" than a "country" since "country" = "sovereign state" (mentioned above). Taiwan fulfills the definition of a "state"; that is pretty obvious. Sovereignty, on the other hand, is disputed.

Only 15 countries, for now, do not pretend that Taiwan is not a de facto country, while continuing to sell Taiwan billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks and missiles. -- from the article Foreign relations of Taiwan, it can be seen that there are still >100 countries that do not maintain relations with Taiwan at all. Among the ~100 countries that maintain relationships with Taiwan while still maintaining "unofficial diplomatic relations" like the US, many of them don't do this much as one would to a real (undisputed) nation. Besides, HK and Macau also have foreign diplomatic relations. That doesn't make HK and Macau independent from China. The China-HK-Macau-Taiwan system (兩岸四地) should be treated with caution, and (kind of) as a special case.

I may have been wrong with "politically make Taiwan more independent from China", but nevertheless Taiwan has not declared independence and most nations don't consider Taiwan to be sufficiently independent from China to be called a "country". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The PRC would be more comfortable with Taiwan being called a "state" than a "country" - Wikipedia does not need to concern itself with what the PRC is comfortable with because Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia only needs to concern itself with United States copyright laws, obscenity laws, libel laws, and non-profit fundraising laws, because the Wikimedia Foundation servers are located in Florida.
That doesn't make HK and Macau independent from China. - Nobody has ever disputed the PRC's sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macau. Every single country on earth recognises that Hong Kong and Macau are indisputable parts of China. This is yet another false equivalence.
most nations don't consider Taiwan to be sufficiently independent from China - What is your personal threshold for "sufficiently independent"? All ROC citizens have free healthcare (while PRC citizens living in the PRC have to pay money, and might get partially subsidised by their employer through the 社會醫療保險卡 system), all ROC citizens are entitled to own land (while PRC citizens can only "borrow" land from the government, and can be forced to relinquish at any time), all ROC citizens have visa-free entry into the majority of OECD nations (while PRC citizens need to be slowly and tediously vetted). Does the ROC Air Force need to drop a nuclear bomb on Beijing in order to demonstrate its sufficiency in its self-governance? --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

okay, I get your point -- my 1st statement wasn't worded well (ignore that statement). I'm not saying Taiwan is a province of China. I'm saying that yes, Taiwan's government and systems resemble a country more than a dependent province. But at the same time, Taiwan is technically not a country. The closest description to "country" that is politically accurate is "state", and that's what I'm going with. Taiwan is like a country in every respect except for that international argument in 1971 that ruled out Taiwan as an independent country. Therefore, Taiwan cannot be accurately called a country. However, Taiwan can be called a state and since state ≈ country, I'm going with the word "state". Until that agreement is overturned, or Taiwan gains the international recognition of more nations, it's still not a country but a near-country, hence the word "state". Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

anyway, I agree that there can never be a consensus on such political issues. We may have to stay with the ideology of "agree to disagree", and there simply cannot be any agreement. Have a good time, and I wish you all the best! From Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country. Despite all the debate over Taiwan's "official" status, its de facto if not declared status is a sovereign and independent nation, both economically as well as politically. It is also generally treated as such even by nations which do not recognize it diplomatically. It would be absurd to classify Taiwan, embraced as a part of the Free World, along with a formerly independent state and province of PRC such as Tibet. World Almanac includes Taiwan's flag and an entry in its "Nations of the World" section. Any debate over its status centers around deference to the belligerent PRC, whose authority over Taiwan is only theoretical and imaginary, and whose hostile rule over mainland China has been illegally usurped. It does no one any favors to use language or terms that kowtow to that. - JGabbard (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree to the wording de facto country, as it conveys the meaning of “almost, not exactly”. If state is not okay “de facto country” is my option no. 2. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 14:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• It is clear that this discussion's iutcone can never satisfy more than 70% of the population. This inherently political discussion won't be going anywhere. Just a reminder that let's avoid going too political and avoid losing our cool. Focus on the wording not your political views on Taiwan. Cheers to all, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 12:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you think you could do everyone a favor and summarize your argument? By my count you’ve made four independent and contradictory arguments. I’m also confused about whether or not you think this is a political discussion as you say above "This inherently political discussion won't be going anywhere." but you said earlier that "IMO this is not a political discussion" so I think you need to be a little clearer. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

okay -- I was saying that it should have been a discussion of prose, but the setting makes it tend towards a question of politics. Hence I decided to slap a message telling people to avoid getting way too political. In short, my argument is that Taiwan is not yet a legitimate country. Yes, it looks like one, in every respect, but so far it has not gained international acceptance. Calling it a state is the closest we can get while staying true to that binding agreement and the legal facts (not yet a country), certainly closer than a province. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Who defines what is a "legitimate" country? Seems to me that any country where the inhabitants accept the rule of the government in place is legitimate in the only meaningful way. ---Khajidha (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Legitimate" as in the 1971 international ruling that establishes the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. This is a decision that Taiwan has been planning to reverse for the past 10, maybe 20, years. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No such ruling exists. There is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, but that only states that the PRC is "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations". That is not the same thing. --Khajidha (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• The article should stick to the legal facts: The Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan) is a state with limited recognition controlling the island of Taiwan and some other smaller islands. Constitutionally speaking, it claims to be the sole legitimate government of China and does not recognize the People's Republic of China (commonly known as China); in practice, it has become largely synonymous with a Taiwanese state. I think it is completely lacking NPOV in the current form. De wafelenbak (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• No chance as that is not what is being discussed here. The only thing we are concerned with is if we keep "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia" or we change it to "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Island We can avoid the issue of jumping the gun and follow some other encyclopedias, e.g. Britannica's and Encarta's articles start with "island". Same with Great Soviet Encyclopedia: "an island in the Pacific Ocean" ("остров в Тихом океане"). The issue of country/state could be explained in subsequent sentences within the lead. Brandmeister^talk 19:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan Island is a separate subject from Taiwan the political entity which is sometimes referred to as an island, looks like the encarta and Soviet Encyclopedia entries are for the former. Brittanica says “self-governing Island” which is a bit different than just saying island. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"Taiwan Island" currently redirects to Geography of Taiwan. Which is about the entire country, with (of course) most of the material being about the big island. --Khajidha (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country - All the sources seem to call it a country. This is an issue wrought with NPOV problems, but the answer seems pretty clear from the reliable sources. The correct thing to do is not to skirt the issue by avoiding it (which kind of feels like censorship), which may be what other encyclopedias do (why should we care what the "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" says?). It's a country; let's call it a country. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country per WP:COMMONNAME per sources cited above, also [51] Adoring nanny (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country per the above sources calling it a country and because most readers whould refer to it as a country.– BrandonXLF (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Reaching Consensus Please continue to place your comments, arguments, sources, facts, opinions and discussion above in the main RfC section. I would like to open this section below for those that have posted above with something other than country to say whether or not they are comfortable with a country consensus. There is clearly a majority of editors who prefer country and I would like to try and build consensus with those who originally disagree with this. Please only post here if you have already written your comment / suggestion above and the suggestion you made was not country and simply state YES/NO as to whether you are alright with a country consensus. If so, why? If not, why? Template included below: [YES|NO]: [REASON] <signature> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Balaban (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Comment: Run-off polling is unnecessary, because polling is not substitute for discussion, and votes aren't considered valid WP:CONSENSUS building because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Whoever closes this RFC discussion is supposed to go through the arguments presented in the discussion above, and finalise an outcome from there. We're already having a clear discussion of points and counter-points, adding something like this would push this further into polling territory. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC) [NO]: We do have to consider what country translates to in Chinese: 國家。And it is important because when a Chinese person comes across this (or one of similar mind) will think that Taiwan is a 國家, but Taiwan never declared independence from ROC and ROC never changed its name. In short, there is no 國家named "Taiwan" without parentheses. There is no direct translation in Chinese for state in this matter, and when one comes across this, one would sense that there is a difference. I am all out for "state". Or "disputed political entity".Cycw (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC) The Chinese language article uses the term 國家. That's one of the points I made above. You are correct in saying that 國家 translates to country. However, NPOV of Wikipedia doesn't need to take into account a person from the PRC reading the article and disagreeing with it. See WP:UNCENSORED. Cycw, this RFC only relates to the English Wikipedia, this decision will have no impact on the Chinese Wikipedia. The translation doesn't matter because this wiki is meant for people who can read English and who aren't relying on translations, that's the whole point of having different language Wikipedias. – BrandonXLF (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Country. Reasoning per Benlisquare and Phlar. comrade waddie96 (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC) @Stephen Balaban: See, this is why I'm opposed to many different subdiscussions within an RFC, it's too confusing for participants, and very understandably so. Why can't we just have a basic RFC discussion? Please reconsider the need for this subsection, I would strongly suggest closing it. The subdiscussion does not provide additional value to the RFC. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Agreed. In a vote with 70% support we don't care about the remaining 30%. Similarly for this RfC. RfCs simply do not work this way. I have to agree that this section should be closed quickly, we just don't need a "comfortable or not" section. What can I do if I'm not comfortable? The RfC is going to close in the exact same way. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Country. Reasoning per Benlisquare and Phlar. comrade waddie96 (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note: I have copied this comment from the closed discussion above. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country - Enough reliable sources call it a country, and we report on what they say rather than what we think it is. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. An ABS-CBN news article, GMA News article, and three Philippine Star articles (country, bansa which is Tagalog for country, country again) refers to Taiwan as a country. I never heard nor read Philippine news referring to Taiwan as a state (maybe The Manila Times does it due to its pro-government bias, but I haven't checked that yet). There's also an ABS-CBN article which refers to Taiwan as an "island-nation". Pandakekok9 (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Heh, nevermind, there's also an article by The Manila Times which refers to Taiwan as a country. Seems like only their opinion articles are cancerous. Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Island. Taiwan is an Island (with disputed ownership). The Republic of China is a state (with disputed legitimacy). The problem with this article is that it conflates the two. (Which is especially confusing because the Republic of China claims to be the government of all of China, not just Taiwan.) This article should start with "Taiwan is an island which is de facto governed by the Republic of China". A separate article on the Republic of China should explain that the Republic of China is the de facto government of Taiwan while also claiming to be the de jure government of mainland China. 70.51.228.249 (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)— 70.51.228.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• That was how these articles were structured between 2003 and 2012, with the country article located at Republic of China, and the island geography article located at Taiwan. However, there was clear and indisputable community consensus to move the country article to Taiwan following a RM discussion in 2012, and we have been at this situation ever since. The pre-exodus content was split and moved to Republic of China (1912–1949), the post-exodus content was moved to Taiwan, and the geography article was first moved to Taiwan (island), and then later Geography of Taiwan. While it's certainly true that consensus can change, if you take a good read of the community atmosphere on Wikipedia, I seriously doubt that any proposal to move Taiwan back to Republic of China will see any success. Ultimately, the WP:CONSENSUS regarding the article title shows no sign of changing any time soon (especially given recent events), and my suggestion would be to focus on improving article content rather than putting hopes on a new RM that, with absolute certainty, will never happen. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see. Was the problem that "Republic of China" went against WP:COMMON? If so, I would suggest Taiwan for the article on the disputed island and Taiwan (Republic of China) for the state. 70.51.228.249 (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• While it'd still be factually correct to have an geographic island article called "Taiwan", the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would still be the country/state/government based on usage within third-party literature. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country The above analyses (thanks all) indicate clearly that the preponderance of English-language reliable sources use the term, and the preponderance of non-English reliable sources use thier language's equivalent of country. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country As shown by all the above RSs which suggest that Taiwan is a country as opposed to a state. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country as per the above wall of words. The english language RSs are heavily weighted toward 'country.' Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• State - Despite the complex and controversial political position of Taiwan, it has limited recognition as a Sovereign state by the international community. The One-China policy complicates this, but the Republic of China/Taiwan is still a soveriegn state, just one with limited international recognition, like Kosovo, Israel or Northern Cyprus.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• This rehashed claim again. One of those you listed has "country" within the lead sentence, another has a passport with access to Turkey and nobody else, and can be potentially accepted by four other countries and nobody else, and finally the last one only has visa-free entry into 41 countries. Apples, oranges and tomatoes are all fruits, but everyone would call you a freak if you put tomatoes into fruit salad, so why put Taiwan into the "unrecognised state" salad? --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country - Taiwan is a de facto independent country. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country. Both "country" and "state" would be appropriate descriptors for Taiwan's political status, but if sources prefer the former, we should go with that. I oppose any other option than "country" or "state". feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 05:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country per above. ~ HAL333 13:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country self-determination is a value Wikipedia should hold in cases like these, where a powerful country like China is forcing other countries to treat Taiwan as a province when most of them wouldn't do it if there wasn't retaliation. Wikipedia has no such problem and it's not bound by the One China rule. --MewMeowth (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

MewMeowth, State is not equal to province, see above. Rather, "state" is the closest thing to "country" in this context, nobody is arguing that Taiwan is a province. Nevertheless there is strong consensus towards "country" and that, I think, is something we should go with. As the RfC is getting less active, I guess we should call in an admin. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 06:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Eumat114 For many people, particularly those who live in countries divided into smaller states, such as Germany, Mexico, and the United States, the title of state carries a connotation of inferiority and submission to a central power. ~ HAL333 03:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

HAL333, yes so "sovereign state" is a better choice IMO. After all, the "status quo" is that Taiwan is a sovereign state. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Eumat114 I would back the use of the term "sovereign state" as well. ~ HAL333 13:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• State I remember an RFC a longgg time ago that concluded that state is more neutral than country. Country is highly subjective imo whereas state is regularly defined in international legal literature. Augend (drop a line) 23:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reword more severely. Drop the fourth lede paragraph while introducing the international politcal statehood dispute into the lede sentence. i.e.

  Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is an internationally politically disputed sovereign state in East Asia.

Both "country" and "state" are word games that mean different things to different people, and both are wrong in some ways. Taiwan is, and is not, a real state, and a real country. It depends on one's political perspective. The fourth paragraph is excessive bloat for a lede section, I guess it is like that because the dispute is so important. If the dispute is so important, and it definitely is, then introduce it to the lede sentence. Taiwan is more notable as a disputed state than it is as something in East Asia. The fourth paragraph can be merged into the lede of the level section Taiwan#Political_and_legal_status. The words fit better there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete the fourth lede paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)} stray draft words that weren't meant to be added. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the dispute is important enough to mention in the opening sentence, and that the fourth paragraph is bloated, but not that it should be deleted entirely. There are key points about Taiwan's status: that it is claimed by the PRC, diplomatically recognized by few countries but has de facto relations with most, and the way the main political divide reflects attitudes on the question. The reason you don't see anything similar in other country articles is because this situation has no parallel elsewhere, and that's also why they are essential to any summary. Kanguole 10:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. "Delete" was the wrong word. The essential part can get into the lede sentence, and the rest can go below in the body. If the dispute make the lede sentence, there is no need to add quickly stated details, details go below, and as per the rest of the lede section, there is much more to Taiwan than the state status dispute. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The essential stuff is too much to fit all of it in the opening sentence, but too important to omit from the lead. There is certainly much more to Taiwan than the dispute, but Taiwan's unusual status is also key to understanding the place. Kanguole 12:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The first sentence needs to remain simple and easy to read. Phlar (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Opening a discussion; see my comment below. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Support "country". Also support "country, and disputed state". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country - calling it a state would seem like something the PRC would want to do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, as per WP:TDLI that "calling it a state is what the PRC wants" is not a really valid argument. Besides, the PRC wants to call it a province, which is radically different from a "state". A state is, as I said before, the closest thing to a country that is internationally politically correct and also close enough to the messy political situation. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• In light of the discussions above the problem might not be as simple as a "country" vs. "state" distinction. We need a deeper discussion into how the first section above; I am WP:BOLDly opening a new section about a discussion on the layout. Feel free to close/revert me if you deem it unnecessary. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• State - calling it a "Country" seems to unneccesarily wade into domestic politics about the nature of the RoC vs independence leaning parties. 72.141.137.95 (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Country or sovereign state. It is not a state of a larger country, therefore it should NOT be called simply "a state". Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Taiwan is an island; to call it a country or a state is to confuse geography with politics. The Republic of China is both a state and a country. It's best described as a country.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Taiwan's circumstance is so unique that it's really difficult to draw parallels to other examples, but I would like to attempt to draw some parallels with a regional neighbor: Korea. There are some slight parallels with Korea. Both North Korea and South Korea hold claims to each other's territories (in parallel with how the ROC and PRC hold claims to each other's territories), and both of these articles refer to the topic in question as countries (i.e. North Korea article says North Korea is a country, as does South Korea's article). The difference between Korea's case and Greater China's case is that both Korean governments coexist in the United Nations whereas the ROC and PRC do not, and that the size of territory controlled by the PRC and the ROC is so vastly imbalanced to the point where it's hard to look at Taiwan and refer to it as "China" without further explanation. After exploring both Korean and Chinese Wikipedia spaces, the article names are as follows:
  • Korean Wikipedia:
    • China: ko:중화인민공화국 (literal: People's Republic of China)
    • Taiwan: ko:중화민국 (literal: Republic of China)
    • South Korea: ko:대한민국 (literal: Republic of Korea)
    • North Korea: ko:조선민주주의인민공화국 (literal: Democratic People's Republic of Korea)
  • Chinese Wikipedia:
    • China: zh:中华人民共和国 (literal: People's Republic of China)
    • Taiwan: zh:中华民国 (literal: Republic of China)
    • South Korea: zh:大韩民国 (literal: Republic of Korea)
    • North Korea: zh:朝鲜民主主义人民共和国 (literal: Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

These articles in both Wikipedias are based on the government names and not by the colloquial names (i.e. Taiwan is named 中华民国 and not 台湾), which allows for the text to be more specific. If we were having a debate about what to name the article (a debate that's already taken place), then this would be a good argument, but if we're set on referring to this page as Taiwan and not the Republic of China then it just feels weird to call it a country while at the same time just referring to it as a mere state. In China's case, it is further complicated by the fact that the Republic of China not only controls Taiwan but also controls Kinmen, Matsu, and other territory not considered part of "Taiwan" or its surrounding islands, so to say that "Taiwan is a country" is true in a colloquial sense but can technically be interpreted as false. Kinmen is *not* Taiwan, and Kinmen is as much a territory of the Republic of China as is Taiwan. I think the only objective way to proceed with breaking this down is to use the policy of deliberate ambiguity in this particular article followed by directing readers to a place that breaks down Taiwan's situation in an objective manner (Political status of Taiwan is a great article that serves this purpose). -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment:: I feel it really bad to let Wikipedians to judge something that even the experts cannot state explicitly. Such judgement, as far as I am concerned, would be essentially populist due to our lack of knowledge which often biases our judgement. Also, keeping a populist rule but ignoring 1.4 billion Chinese would definitely be stupid and undoubtedly offensive. The wise way is that we should make it less populist, and less rely on how we really feel about the thing and instead clearly describe the dispute explicitly by saying that Taiwan is a "disputed state/country" and leave it alone. Drawing a conclusion on a disputed topic as if the dispute had been settled is not at all what we should and could do.--34Unionist (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If China didn't want the voice of 1.4 billion Chinese people to be unheard, it wouldn't have implemented the Great Firewall. This is something beyond our control, and beyond our jurisdiction; it's the consequence of a 100% self-inflicted ailment. People in China who are already passionate enough about contributing to Wikipedia would have already done so via VPNs (there are thousands of such Wikipedia editors, contributing to the project right now), so it's not like they're actively being excluded by Wikipedia. With this in mind, we need to focus on how we can improve the reading experience for our current readers of Wikipedia, rather than the potential experience of a hypothetical 1.4 billion people who don't know about Wikipedia, don't wish to read Wikipedia, or don't need to read Wikipedia. Based on Wikipedia policy, the majority of reliable sources call the topic of this article a country; based on Wikipedia policy, the name most commonly used to describe the topic of this article is Taiwan.

(Removed my Chinese version of the above text, because it's clearly causing users to be upset) --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benlisquare:Sorry but I would consider you what you said a little bit racist for I did not even try to speak Chinese here. You don't need to assume that I can read Chinese deliberately, treat me differently from others here by being sarcastic about what I have said in written Chinese. What you say about the majority of Chinese who is underrepresented here is just as absurd as those who want to silence Taiwan as an underrepresented state in the world. You should by no means make such sarcasm, which, in my humble opinion, backfires. --34Unionist (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, you see, this is why there is a common negative stereotype of Chinese people debating online, you immediately jump towards a defensive position, find a convenient target amongst something small I say, and conveniently avoid addressing the primary issue.

Sorry but I would consider you a little bit racist - I'm Chinese. I ancestrally hail from Beijing. Fuck, 12 years ago I was literally a pro-China 憤青 on the internet until I stopped being an edgy teenager, and actually saw the real world. Even so, I'd have every right to say what I have said even if I wasn't Chinese. Such reasoning is as silly as a Turkish person saying "you're not allowed to talk about the Armenian genocide if you're not Turkish, otherwise you're racist". If somebody challenges a position you raise, the correct thing is to address those points, and not wave the discrimination flag around.

You don't need to assume that I can read Chinese deliberately - It's literally inferred from your userpage. Don't like it, then don't share that information.

treat me differently from others here - Your English grammar is undeniably spotty at best, it is not unreasonable for me to provide a bilingual response, for the sake of unambiguous comprehensibility. In fact, for the past 15 years I generally do provide bilingual responses on Wikipedia talkpages whenever I see fit. There are other Chinese people on this talk page right now, and I have not responded to them with bilingual messages, because they don't make English grammar mistakes.

What you say about the majority of Chinese who is underrepresented here is just as absurd - It's a common trope that whenever China's official position is questioned, the standard cookie-cutter response is to mention that China has 1.4 billion people. Basing your argument that 1.4 billion people might be opposed to a position holds less ground than Wikipedia policy such as WP:RS, which you still have not responded to yet. If you want to constructively contribute to a discussion, the best thing to avoid is casting aspersions that other people are "hypocritical" or "actually being censors" like you have done below. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I don't think your background matters when talking with you until you told me it is important. I am proud of my background and am happy to share the information, but it is totally not relevant to this debate. OK? Your personal history doesn't matter to me or to the issue, either. I am just trying to remind you of that. It is racist, I mean the behaviour of treating people differently according to their background. Sorry for improper wording. --34Unionist (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

My position still stands unchanged. If your concern is that the voice of Chinese people is being unduely misrepresented here, then by all means find a way to increase constructive Chinese participation in this discussion. It is not the fault of the Wikipedia community that there are various restrictions that prevent such participation from occurring, and you should not place the blame on us when it is a factor completely beyond our control. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Moreover have all 1.4 billion Chinese been personally asked in a way that would allow for them to express their views without fear of reprisal? If so can we have a link to the survey in question?Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a red herring. Also, you are being sarcastic about China of lack of free speech, but you will not actually listen to any of a real Chinese from China who is trying to exercise his freedom of speech, despite all the sarcasm and presumption you make about them. This is hypocritical. You are actually a censor in another sense.--34Unionist (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No I am asking how you know what 1.4 billion Chinese think. Ohh and we do listen to them, the problem is there are (at least) two factions. So which one do we decide is authoritative?, which is why I asked for proof this is what all Chinese think, because those who live in Taiwan would say they do not agree.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a question given that you claim to live in the PRC, wouldn’t it be illegal for a PRC citizen to vote “Country” in this poll? Pretty sure that would count as separatism, no? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Taiwan but also controls Kinmen, Matsu, and other territory not considered part of "Taiwan" or its surrounding islands" This is as silly as saying that "Corsica" is not part of "France". Countries all over the world incorporate and control territory that is not contiguous with the "main bodies" of those countries. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• De facto sovereign state: As others have pointed out, this is a technically precise term in terms of international recognition and international law, which is also used by a large proportion of academic & journalistic RSes. It specifies the actual situation without deferring to ambiguous terms like state (polity) and country.
  Country is ambiguous, since it is used for dependencies and constituent states as well as for sovereign states. The alternative of de facto country isn’t standard terminology – it’s not frequently used by RSes nor by major international organizations.
  It’s inappropriate exercise to directly use editors’ personal understandings of the situation to describe it. We should defer to academic & journalistic RSes and major international organizations, while acknowledging the pressure applied by the PRC to the latter group. Self-determination also isn’t an appropriate barometer, since there are dozens of declared independent and micro states that are described as sovereign states by almost no academic/journalistic RSes and almost no major international organizations.
  The above are general points that should apply to all entities, in particular those with limited recognition by a large proportion of RSes/major international organizations. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Since I just noticed some requests here for references using "de facto" with "sovereign state" or "state", here are a few from the thousands that can be easily found with a quick search:
    • Clough, Ralph N. "The Status of Taiwan in the New International Legal Order in the Western Pacific." Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), vol. 87, 1993, pp. 73–77. JSTOR, Link.
    • Barry, Bartmann. "Between De Jure and De Facto Statehood: Revisiting the Status of Taiwan." Island Studies Journal, vol 3(1), 2008. Link.
    • Chen, Angeline G. "Taiwan's International Personality: Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones." Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal, vol 20(2), 1998. Link.
    • Carolan, Christopher J. "The 'Republic of Taiwan': A Legal-Historical Justification for a Taiwanese Declaration of Independence." New York University Law Review, vol 75(2), 2000. Link.
    • Ediger, Mikaela L. "International Law and the Use of Force Against Contested States: The Case of Taiwan." New York University Law Review, vol 93(6), 2018. Link.
    • Otopalik, Cameron M. "Taiwan's Quest for Independence: Progress on the Margins for Recognition of Statehood" Asian Journal of Political Science, vol 14, 2006. Link.
    • Cho, Young Chul and Ahn, Mun Suk. "Taiwan’s international visibility in the twenty-first century: A suggestive note." Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis, vol 72(1), 2017. Link.
    • Shih, Shu-mei and Liao, Ping-hui. "Comparatizing Taiwan." Routledge, 2014. Link.
    • Article by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: link.
    • Article by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs: link.
    • Article by the BBC: link.
    • Article by France 24: link.
    • Article by NPR: link.
    • Article by the Financial Times: link.
    • Article by the CBC: link.
    • Article by The Diplomat: link.
    • Article by Foreign Policy: link.
    • Article by the Japan Times: link.
    • Article by The Wire: link.
    • This common description is even recognized by an article in the Taipei Times: link.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 04:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would remind users thus is the English language wiki, this is the language we use here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• State English wikipedia should meet most people's opinions. That is to say, the attitudes towards English wikipedia should be consistent with most countries and most international organisations instead of someone's political view. Of course there are some countries which have diplomatic relations with Republic of China, so when it comes to some political article about the ROC, it can be regarded as a country. However, in most of the websites, news, reports and newspaper, we cannot see the three words regardless of the requirement of Communist Party of China or the own behaviour of other countries. So in my point of view, English wikipedia should respect most countries' and international organisations' decisions because there aren't and shouldn't be so much disagreement here. English wikipedia is not Chinese wikipedia and doesn't have severe conflicts between PRC and ROC, China and Taiwan. --Easterlies (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Easterlies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• However, in most of the websites, news, reports and newspaper, we cannot see the three words - Source? Can you provide links that show that most "websites, news, reports and newspapers" don't use words such as "country" to describe Taiwan? --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country', and here's why: "State" is a very generic term that can be applied to various sorts of government entities. Even :"sovereign state"--which the states in the US like to call themselves even though they are actually independent in only a few limited matters. Bt "country" is specific. In a political sense, it means a full self-governing country, or one that at least chooses to claim that it is self governing, like the Soviet era republics. Taiwan is in both its own opinion self governing, and no subject to any outside controls except for whatever may be its treaty obligations. It runs its own foreign affairs, it has its own military force. It may think it ought to be the legitimate government of mainland China, but in practice it has no authority there. The PRC considers Taiwan's claim to independent status illegitimate, and therefore does not refer to it as a country, and so do some other governments and organizations that wish to be on good terms with the PRC. But in practice the PRC has no actual jurisdiction there and no actual military forces or other instruments of government active there, however much it may wish otherise -- and, even, to those who uspport the PR politically, however much it possibly might be entitled to justly wish otherwise and consider it entitled to. Country is therefore the more specific definition,and what we ought to use. We describe the world as it is, whether or not we like the way it is. It's justified by the actual facts of the current situation, and by what it considers itself. It is open to anyone to l decide whether o not to consider this status legitimate. (The examples of usage above are mostly irrelevant--ther terms are in general writing used withoutay specific thought to the specific meaning). DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  @DGG: Which US states claim to be sovereign?! — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  All of them. As stated in our own article "each state holds governmental jurisdiction over a separate and defined geographic territory and shares its sovereignty with the federal government." --Khajidha (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Right, a state shares its sovereignty with the federal government, so it is not a sovereign state on its own. A sovereign state isn’t dependent on other overarching entities. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Wouldn't that also apply to the EU members that have delegated part of their sovereignty to the EU itself? --Khajidha (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  EU member states don’t share sovereignty with the EU organization in the same way that US states do. The powers delegated to the EU aren’t of the same binding and supreme authority that the US federal government holds (both legally and de facto). For instance, see Member state of the European Union#Sovereignty: Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union guarantees the sovereignty of EU member states, while allowing for partial delegation to EU institutions. In other words, EU member states have delegated partial sovereignty to the EU in a limited sense (akin to the early US two centuries ago), yes, but not to the same degree that US states have.

  But we don’t need to trust my explanation or ponder the extent to which partial sovereignty renders the term sovereign state inapplicable. RSes treat EU member states as sovereign states. RSes haven’t described US states as sovereign states since the mid-19th century. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Country or Sovereign state - b/c a) per all the "de facto" comments above, that's what it is, and b) that's how most sources refer to it. NickCT (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment most sources i see here are from newspapers, magazines, governmental-entities etc. i feel like this question needs to be determined by a "scientific" consensus, i.e. what do most publications outside PRC/ROC say since 1949? as for my little oxford study of facts:

country: "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory."

if nation condition is satisfied, yes.

nation: "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory."

very debatable. then again, such is this definition for the USA, or even PRC, or indeed any other country in the world. one might argue, even for "nation states". so id say yes, country.

state: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government."

considered by whom? not by the UN as a whole. but by a few member states. the rest is surely true. quite a fuzzy definition in my eyes. id say, yes, state.

souvereign state: "a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not :subject to or dependent on another power."

not more dependent than many other countries "considered as" that, so yes, sovereign state.

EnTerbury (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Per your own "oxford study of facts" it is NOT a sovereign state per the UN and most other sovereign states, as it is subject or dependent on another power, China. It's defined territory is very up in the air for the same reasons. It's a unique situation to be sure, but it is not a sovereign state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click):, none of the definitions i quoted mention the UN, neither does the definition of "sovereignty" or the like. as has been mentioned several times in the discussion above, ROC is much more independent than many other UN member countries that do not have these talk pages. moreover, one should not confuse sovereignty and dependence. what do you mean by "defined territory"? taiwan is very much under their control, and thats all the definition is concerned about. EnTerbury (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

country: Taiwan should be called a country. It has it owns government, its own military and everything that a country has. The only thing that is lacks is a major international recognition but taiwan is still recognized by 15 other countries. The ROC is the official name of taiwan and inthe beginning of the article it also says that the republic of china also referred to as Taiwan. It wouldnt be fare to Taiwan to be called a state on wikipedia although it has everything a country has. No other soevereign country is called a state on wikipedia so that should also not happen with Taiwan.Finn.reports (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

De facto state: It is a sovereign state in all but widespread recognition. Country is ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.27.203 (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Everyone discussing Taiwan is a country or not. Should we start to discuss other countries are countries or not. In Past, when there was UN, at that time also countries were present.PRC just claim, why a country's Claiming getting much importance than hurting 23 million people of Taiwan.If we are discussing Taiwan a country or not, we should ask a Taiwanese, what he feels.When I study the Constitution of ROC, no statement I found that it's not a country. And this talk page will have no conclusion, there is no timeline or judge for it, so who gonna conclude ?? Kushal2024 (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is that most countries do not have another country saying they are part of them. Added to this is very few countries claim that another country is owned by them. This is far more complex than most national identities.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kushal2024: The Constitution of the Principality of Sealand also does not indicate that it’s not a country. Do you think that any constitution would? — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As for conclusion, this discussion has been set up as an RFC, so eventually an uninvolved administrator will close it, assessing consensus. Kanguole 11:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I have requested closure of this RFC at WP:AN/RFC. Kanguole 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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