Talk:Politics of Taiwan

message: Should the title of this article be rename as Politics of the Republic of China (as well as the template)? — Instantnood 19:36, Feb 14 2005 (UTC)
Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate.". — Instantnood 19:35, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
:The term "Republic of China" is little understood and confusing to most people worldwide. The first principle of writing good articles is to not confuse the reader. We should therefore use the only generally understood term, which is "Taiwan", jguk 19:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I had some discussion with Instantnood and I suggested the compromise to name these kind of pages ..of Republic of China - Taiwan. I think this might be less POV Gangulf 22:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gangulf agreed with "..of Republic of China (Taiwan)" but she/he prefers "..of Republic of China - Taiwan".  — Instantnood 22:21 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
* Are you saying that the compromise is to name or rename ROC-related pages currently named "Republic of China" to a new name substituting or incorporating "Taiwan?" Or using both simultaneously? or are you just patting yourself on the back and saying you had some discussion and made a suggestion? There is no entity known as the "Republic of China" it died in 1949, and the U.S. and other countries do not officially recognize a "Republic of China" but they officially recognize a successor state known as the "People's Republic of China."  The West, in popular parlance, knows it simply and unconfusingly as Taiwan.  You say ROC to the average Westerner and they'll immediately think Beijing.  If that's the compromise, I continue my objections for the reasons enumerated hitherto. —ExplorerCDT 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: What I see of the recent discussion over whether to use PRC, ROC, mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao is that it reveals a deadlock over an encyclopedia built up by ordinary internet users. It is not easy to preserve the professional style of editing which an encyclopedia needs, as Huaiwei has suggested. People who supported and opposed the move had different concerns, whether to preserve accuracy, or to make it easy to use for average readers. If there isn't any ressolution to the deadlock, the number of votes for each side could be meaningless.  — Instantnood 11:47 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
*I've said this elsewhere before: We need a better way to enforce editorial policy (to the extent that this is desirable at all). It is pointless to argue about whether the ROC even exists on this page; we can have these arguments, but the sole purpose of this page is to decide whether and how pages should be moved/renamed. In this case, the (re)naming is governed by the naming conventions for China-related articles. Objections to and discussion of those naming conventions are simply out of place here. The only relevant question is whether the requested moves would result in better compliance with the naming conventions.What I'm advocating here is a better separation between policy making (deciding what the naming conventions should be) and implementation of policies. We cannot re-open policy discussions when it's time to implement an existing policy.  The whole point of a separate policy is to ensure consistency and to centralize the discussion. And the best way to achieve consistency is to implement the policy uniformly. This requires that users be able to separate what they think is the Right Way To Do Things from what the policy says. On this page, we're talking about policy implementation.  The only question we're trying to resolve is whether the original article name or the proposed new article name (or something else entirely) is more desirable according to the existing naming conventions. Personal opinions about the appropriateness of those naming conventions should play no role in the debate. --MarkSweep 02:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A time of crisis

message: I removed the following first two paragraphs of the introduction and reverted back to the old introduction:
The politics of Taiwan is complex, since two opposing bodies each claim jurisdiction over it, and tensions remain high.    
  
The Peoples Republic of China (PRC} claims de jure sovereignty over Taiwan, but de facto controls only "mainland China". The PRC's view that Taiwan (or Formosa) is a "rebellious province" is accepted by most countries, but the U.S. and some other countries tacitly oppose this view. (For example, the "American embassy" on Taiwan is nominally a trade ministry.)
The PRC's claims to Taiwan and how other countries view Taiwan's status are best discussed in the article Political status of Taiwan.   The politics of Taiwan article is supposed to talk about how the ROC is governed and the political parties that influence the government.  While PRC's attempts to influence the politics of Taiwan is important, it is not important enough to be in the introduction.  And information about the PRC's claims to Taiwan definitely should not be ahead of information about the territories that the ROC currently administers.
Allentchang 05:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: This article was moved from Politics of Taiwan to Politics of the Republic of China.  It looks controversial to me, and I don't see a consensus.  Taiwan should be more neutral given that it could refer to Taiwan plus all other islands without saying one way or the other about independence, official title, etc.  But could someone point me in the right direction?  Where was the consensus that this should be done?--DownUnder555 02:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i'd have to concur. to concede taiwan as the disputed 'republic of china' at the outset sends a biased taint throughout the remaining article. the original Politics of Taiwan conveyed greater neutrality by comparison, as it didn't instantly implicate the entire feud by way of name alone. the necessity for change was terribly unfounded. --Blackinferno 10:12pm, 18 November 2005
I concur as well. The politics of Taiwan also goes back for centuries before the Republic of China, for example the Qing Dynasty, the Portuguese, etc. This is a farce and implies that Taiwan's political history only involves the Republic of China and erases all other history. Politics of Taiwan =/= Politics of the Republic of China. --68.161.174.39 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the consensus for a move?

message: I can't believe that a couple of paragraphs about political structures is supposed to be an article about 38 years of pre-1949 politics on the mainland. No CC Clique? This isn't about politics, this is about government.   DOR (HK) (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the ''Politics'' of the ROC?

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Rename per the main article which is at Taiwan. If necessary, reduce pre 1949 material. WP:TITLECHANGES doesn't really apply in cases like this where the overarching article name has been changed and it's natural for subordinate articles to follow. A lot of the Taiwan articles were never properly renamed after the main one was a few years back due to some persistent opposition but this mess needs tidying up. Timrollpickering 15:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads like that because certain editors try to force the oversimplified "Taiwan" moniker on things that are not about Taiwan. I do not believe that should be there, and would remove it, but I have no desire to get into that sort of entrenched battle. As an example, when someone got the page Elections in the Republic of China moved to Elections in Taiwan, they made a lovely stupid change in the clean-up process, whereby they wrote 'The government of Taiwan, led by the Kuomintang, retreated to Taiwan in 1949 for losing the Chinese Civil War with the Communist Party of China'. These sorts of counterfactual nonsenses have their origins in this kind of battle that we've seen on Wikipedia, where people who do not understand the history of this dispute are using oversimplified news jargon to make their determinations on what is what, as opposed to actually ensuring that what they say makes any sense or has any connection to the historical reality. In any case, the only way to avoid this, is to ensure that we do not oversimplify the history of this situation. Yes, the entity currently based in Taiwan, official called the Republic of China, is commonly called Taiwan for the sake of simplicity, but that doesn't separate that entity from its historical reality, or from its legal identity. The goal of an encylopaedia is to spread information, not disinformation. Let's mind that goal, shall we? RGloucester  — ☎ 18:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but what you haven't noted is that the politics of the present-day Republic of China are a direct descendant of the mainland regime's politics, in a way that does not apply to those other cases, and that there is no such inheritance from the Japanese colonial system. What I mean by this is that the constitution of the RoC, the Three Principles of the People, all of the institutions of the present RoC government, are developments that originally occurred on the mainland, and were only later transplanted to Taiwan. Removing the history of these institutions, as is proposed above, and replacing them with a section on Japanese rule, makes absolutely no sense in the historical context and will not further the reader's comprehension of how the politics of 'Taiwan' work. The continuity here, as described by the article, is one of the RoC, not of a 'Taiwan'. However, we still have people like the overly formulaic Number 57, above, who prefer a foolish consistency to any kind of sense. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say that they're totally unmoored from previous politics, (The recent Croatian election was often covered in the news as infighting dating back to the Second World War,) but I take that point. I do note however that other cases with more continuous histories, off the top of my head Politics of the United States and Politics of France, have also eschewed a history section. Comparisons aside, I continue to stand on the merits of the argument, which is aiming to provide clarity and focus in the articles. On these merits, I would agree with you that replacing the ROC history with the Japanese administration sounds like a very poor idea indeed. I also would like to clarify that I am not suggesting removing all the elements that came from pre-1949, rather, I would like them to be included where they clearly demonstrate how they are relevant to the present, say under a Constitution section rather than a History section. I also aren't suggesting this simply be split pre- and post-1949, hence my mention of martial law. At any rate, Japan, institution, etc., are all issues that will need to be discussed regardless of title, and will unavoidably muddle this move request due to their being unresolved. CMD (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I must remind everyone here this: politics of Taiwan, politics of taiwan, and politics in Taiwan are currently discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 2#Politics of Taiwan. You are welcome to join the discussion there. --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects to the article at [[WP:RFD]] 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Oppose or procedural close - This is nothing more than a split proposal. Also, changing the title wouldn't benefit good results, especially as the consensus at the previous RM opposed the change. See more at Discussion. George Ho (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Survey (RM)


message: *Oppose - I don't think anyone the majority can support this proposal. The whole scope of this article is about the "Republic of China", not the Taiwan island, though ROC has lived in exile in Taiwan since the Chinese Civil War. Also, the proposal is too simplistic to describe the complexity of the topic. --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The current RoC constitution was adopted in 1947, before the government was forced to flee the mainland in 1949. Yes, the politics of the RoC have changed over time, but so have the politics of all countries. The RoC of today is the same RoC that was on the mainland, a direct continuation of that government, and these cannot be separated. This article has always been about the RoC, and not about Taiwan. Taiwan has a completely separate political history from that of the RoC, including Japanese, Qing, and Dutch rule. If it isn't clear enough, I absolutely oppose this proposal. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (RfC)

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. There's no real objection to this move; issues with the article besides the article name is outside the scope of this discussion and should be further discussed elsewhere on the talk page. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior 00:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Politics of the Republic of China →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME, this should not be a controversial move, but due to the move history, seeking comments and consensus to move here. Taiwan is the main article for which this article covers politics. The common name consensus specific to Taiwan-related topics was thoroughly discussed and established through Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20#Final closing statement. This article covers modern topics as well as both Taiwanese history pre-ROC and early ROC on mainland China - the same is true for Taiwan. For what it's worth, this convention is applied to Politics of China (not named Politics of the People's Republic of China), so the move would be appropriate for consistency. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Move or disambiguate due to ambiguity with Republic of China (1912–1949). SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment, had seen Politics of China, Politics of North Korea, Politics of South Korea instead of PRC, DPRK, ROK. Most, including News Media, simply called Taiwan, the few that called official names are mostly governmental institutions/entities. Given that there are some paragraphs about ROC Era in Mainland China Pre-1949 in this article, would be better to move WP:SECMOVE to Republic of China (1912–1949) (similar to Russian Empire#Government and administration). --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed. WP:CONSISTENT guides to a page move. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm leaning support over this but I'm not seeing the rationale of adding a NPOV tag in the article. Are there other issues aside from a proposed page move? John Yunshire (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a consensus here to move? The NPOV tag is unrelated to the article name, but I guess there are broader problems with the content than NPOV. In any case, I’m not seeing any real opposition to the page move. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 December 2023 

message: Regarding about (not published officially since 2006), I tried to find a reference source for that about <<Mainland China not published officially since 2006>> which doesn't have citation yet, so far couldn't find for 2006 <<中華民國年鑑九十五年>> or <<中華民國年鑑>> or <<中華民國九十五年>>/<<中華民國95年>>, to show the difference between 2006 & 2005 yearbook, so far found only printed book for sales, so far none.(That 中華民國九十四年年鑑 第一篇　總論 was the last yearbook (2005/ROC94) that had included Mainland China). Anywhere can I find 2006 yearbook open-access to show the differences or any source that could back it up on <<Mainland China not published officially since 2006>>?(Actually becuase it's about content, I'm starting in Article Talk page here instead of User page) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a translation from zh:中華民國行政區劃#播遷臺灣 and zh:中華民國公告疆域行政區劃#範圍, which have a few citations. But would note these articles actually say the map was discontinued after 2004 (starting 2005). Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: my bad, didn't said that I had read it from zh:中華民國行政區劃 , however this supposedly "archive" page are actually empty (all are HTTP 404 not found) Since that statement doesn't have citation, other might say WP:NEEDCITE and challenged it. I hadn't read (and now just read) the other, especially [廢止「編印大陸地區地圖注意事項」] 2004/ROC93 order. From what I understand, 2004 order cease publication of Mainland China map, 2005 the last yearbook that contain such map, and 2006 yearbook the first without such map (which doesn't have any open-source material to compare 2005/2006 book). Since it so cumbersome (2004 order..2005 last..2006 first to do away) I would, from <<Historically but no longer published since 2006>> I would had do away the year/date or just phrase it (Historically but no longer published since  early 2000s) with that 2004 order cited as source reference....is it ok? --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Hi Butterdiplomat, since I hadn't heard reply from you, I will take it as non-objection. I will make changes accordingly (Historically but no longer published since early 2000s) with 2004 Statutory instrument order from zh:中華民國公告疆域行政區劃 - [廢止「編印大陸地區地圖注意事項」 --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine in my view. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding about (not published officially since 2006) 

message: Why is this article's neutrality now being disputed? Jarble (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of it was resolved in my view. I will remove the tag. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute