Template talk:Asia topic/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Note: Not all pages about the country Georgia are at [ [Whatever in Georgia (country)] ], such as Foreign relations of Georgia, which may lead to trouble. 68.39.174.238 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• If that's the case, then you could create some redirects to help solve the problem. More sophisticated template logic might be a better idea though. --CapitalR 09:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what parameters 2 and 3 do in this template? It looks like 2 is reserved for China and 3 for Taiwan, but I can't quite figure out why. --CapitalR 09:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these parameters allow the replacement of the "China" and "Taiwan" country names by other terms (usually, "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" respectively). I'm not sure if they are actually used anywhere; while they could be used to solve a problem, it would require the parameters being added to every template in the series. Warofdreams talk 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[1] - Why is the former kept and the latter was removed? — Instantnood 13:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - I've reinserted West Bank; both are present in Template:Asia. Warofdreams talk 02:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the west bank, which pointed to an article about politics with nothing about history in it. For those interested, there is plenty of material in History of Palestine and numerous other articles.

--Gabi S. 11:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember that this template is used for many topics, not just history. If the redirect from "History of the West Bank" is inappropriate, the solution is to fix that, not to remove things from this template. Warofdreams talk 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

They are commonly referred to as Palestinian territories and there is no need for separation in this general template. And these are territories occupied by Israel, thus grouped together, following the China and Korea examples. --Gabi S. 07:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an article for geography of the West Bank, but not for geography of the Palestinian territories (a separate geography of the Gaza Strip article is missing though). — Instantnood 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip does not deserve a special entry in this Geography of Asia template. It is already part of the Palestinian Territories entry, and if you don't know, the Palestinian Authority completely administers the Gaza Strip. From a geographical point of view, this tiny strip is completely negligible. Note that India, for example, is listed without any pointers to Assam or other disputed regions in it. Anyone looking for Gaza Strip will easily find it under the Palestinian Territories entry. --Gabi S. 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The West Bank is not completely administered by the Palestinian Authority [2]. There's no comparable trouble with Assam or any other disputed territories. — Instantnood 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip is completely administered by the Palestinian Authority. And all the Palestine-related noise is not making the Palestinian National Authority a sovereign entity comparable in any way to the State of Israel, so there is no point in emphasizing them as equal. Also, please note that there is no need to list the separate parts of the Palestinian Territories in this template. It suffices to have just the Palestinian Territories listed, and anyone looking there will easily find the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. These are considered internal provinces of the Palestinian Territories, which are part of the area controlled by Israel. --Gabi S. 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to address the missing articles issue. If there is some article missing on, say, the History of the Gaza Strip, then please go ahead and create it. Don't change the template because an article is missing, create the article. If there is a similar article, you can redirect to it. If you create a new article but don't have enough information, you can mark it as a stub. But don't change the template just because an article is missing. --Gabi S. 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

First, the West Bank is not entirely under PNA administration. And second, what to do if Foo of Palestinian territories does not exist? — Instantnood 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

PNA administration is irrelevant, actually. Separating the Palestinian Territories into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is redundant and too detailed for a general list that is used as an index, and should be avoided in this template. Of course such details are important when getting into the topic, but from a general point of view, as used in this template, it is over-elaborated. (Oh, by the way, if X of Palestinian Territories does not exist, just go ahead and create it.) --Gabi S. 08:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely that there would ever be two distinct articles on "Topic in Taiwan" and "Topic in the Republic of China", but rather more likely that one would be a redirect to the other. Similarly it will often be the case that if there are distinct West Bank and Gaza Strip articles there may not be an overarching article for the Palestinian Territories (though that is by no means always the case) and conversely there will clearly be times when "Topic in the West Bank" or "Topic in the Gaza Strip" are inappropriate. Is there some of way of controlling these with template parameters? TheGrappler 05:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

History of the Republic of China and history of Taiwan, for instance. — Instantnood 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China might be part of China if you think so, but Taiwan isn't. The ROC is only a government on Taiwan, and it has no culture, but Taiwan does. So you should really change it into Taiwan. I don't really care if it goes under China. It would be better if it doesn't though, because Chinese culture and technologies are different from Taiwanese.--68.98.154.196 19:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Distorting history and culture to fulfill political agendas like so doesn't fit here... --Aldis90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldis90 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles that deal with government should use "Republic of China" or "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Articles that are not primarily about government should use "Taiwan". There needs to be a parameter to distinguish the two. The current template where "China" has an asterisk with a footnote included PRC, HK, Macau, and ROC(Taiwan) is a blatant violation of NPOV. Readin (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any requirements about what kinds of entities can be listed, nor about preventing overlap. So to fix the NPOV problem, which needed immediate fixing, I just moved all the topics into the list on an equal footing. So China, Hong Kong, Macau, People's Republic of China, Republic of China and Taiwan are all in the list on an equal footing with no judgements made as to their independence, lack of independence, or territorial overlap.Readin (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV changes were recently reverted. The WP:NPOV says "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia...This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." While the reason given for reverting the changes had merit, it is not as important as maintaining NPOV. If a way can be found to maintain NPOV while grouping mainland China, HK, and Macau, it makes sense to do so. But if those are grouped it's difficult to see how we maintain NPOV regarding Taiwan because both including Taiwan and excluding Taiwan would represent a POV.Readin (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've followed this template from Gay Rights, and was wondering why there is China, and then People's Republic of Chna. What is the difference?

It's part of the endless debate over the correct terminology for Taiwan and China. Giving both the terms is a (rather unsatisfactory) way of ensuring the correct links are available. Warofdreams talk 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you. Dev920 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Per here, would anyone object to this template being renamed {{Asia topic}}, thereby leaving the of/in specified by its parameter (e.g. {{Asia topic|Communications in}}, {{Asia topic|Economy of}}, etc)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this template is titled "terrorism in asia", as terrorism encompases most if not all of the middle east also (and arguably the rest of the world). Maybe it should be changed to plain "terrorism". Dullfig 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The template itself isn't called "Terrorism in Asia"; the parameter supplied to that instance of the template has caused it to carry that title (i.e. {{Asia topic|Terrorism in}} ). Yours, David Kernow (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2006

Shamelessly borrowed from Template:Europe topic. These actually should exist.

Some specific-interests are also legitimate:

This seems to be intended to allow an alternative article for topics relating to "…the People's Republic of China", but I have yet to discover it actually being used. There was an equivalent parameter 4 which used to perform a similar function for "…the Republic of China" but this was lost in about June 2006. Is there any point in keeping this any longer? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's been superfluous since then. Well spotted - I've now removed it. Warofdreams talk 02:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why each link doesn't (seem to) default to a country link, as per {{Europe topic}}...?  Curious, David Kernow (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just that no-one has desired that function enough to implement it. If you'd like to, please feel free. Warofdreams talk 01:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Have only just spotted your reply; apologies. As this default seems reasonable and already exists in {{Europe topic}}, I'll implement it here and on any other of the {{[continent] topic}} templates without it. Regards, David (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PS insert "eventually". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Kernow (talk • contribs) 10:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

• ...now implemented (eventually). David (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are countries that only have a very small part (<5%) of their territory in Europe listed as having "significant territory in Europe"? Is the significance referred to here political, cultural, historical, in terms of population or is it geographical? My first guess when reading this was that it meant geographical.
If it is geographical, I could see countries such as Russia having this designation. But in cases such as Georgia (2.87%) and Turkey (3.05%), I don't see it. (See Transcontinental country#Countries in both Asia and Europe). If any percentage is enough, then shouldn't Greece (4.6% in Asia) be listed here (as per the previous link)?
If on the other hand, significance is something else, or all of the above, then ok. In any case, I think it should be better defined.
Also, wouldn't it make sense to mark which countries are considered to be European culturally, politically, historically, etc. even though they're geographically in Asia? (See, for example, Cyprus which is wholly in Asia, geographically, but is a full EU member or Armenia)
I'm nowhere near an expert, just wondering.... --Kimon 14:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither am I – and I'm inclined to agree (and, since I believe the significance is meant to be geographical, I'm sheepish not to've noticed these apparent discrepancies before!). Personally, I'd say that if Georgia has just 2.87% of its territory in Europe, while Greece has just 4.6% of its territory in Asia, let's make life simpler by saying Georgia is wholly in Asia and Greece wholly in Europe. Presumably, though, that's not the official view (probably, I guess, because it ignores some history as regards the other factors you mentioned – politics, culture, etc). I suppose Turkey may have more of a claim to be partly European as I'm assuming the 3.05% of its land in question is the land on the far side of the Dardanelles-Marmara-Bosporus. But, by the same token, wouldn't Cyprus also then be European...?  (More of a rhetorical question.)

So perhaps the phrase should read "Has some territory in Europe."  Anyone else...?

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I that would be more objective text, or perhaps even "Has territory in Europe."

This brings up another question. Do any of these countries have territorial claims that are in Europe? Perhaps this could also be noted if the country claims the territory but it is not officially part of its geography. --Kimon 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As there seems to be agreement, I've changed the text. The current note was basically introduced to make the scope of the template clearer; I think that notes introduced simply because they have some interesting information would distract from its primary purpose. Warofdreams talk 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

History of South Korea, which includes this template, contains a link "History of of Taiwan". This might be fixed by changing "{{{1}}} of Taiwan" to "{{{1}}} Taiwan", but I am not prepared to attempt this change. --Kernigh 03:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be repaired – or have I missed the problem...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Whats the point of having a big bulky template box like this especially since there may be no connection at all besides them being countries of the continent of Asia? Doesn't the categorization pages do enough already? --Dara 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not so big/bulky when it's instantiated; per this above, the links default to a country's article if no "X of [country]" article exists. Re categories vs. templates (vs. lists), I think these are meant to be complementary routes to articles, to accommodate different types of browsing. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

question: why is it that the entry for china is:
China (People's Republic of China (Hong Kong • Macau)
and for taiwan is:
Republic of China (Taiwan)) ?
i think that the use of the parentheses is not right. please clear me on this matter. thanks. --RebSkii 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that some people are finding the two layers of brackets confusing. Do you have a suggestion to make it less so? Warofdreams talk 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is just one entry, China (People's Republic of China (Hong Kong • Macau) • Republic of China (Taiwan)).--Huaiwei 11:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

how about square brackets? + nowiki of course. --RebSkii 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That will be a good idea. I tried the same thing, without realising I can "no wiki" it. ;)--Huaiwei 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The template has been edited to reflect the above.--Huaiwei 12:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Under current naming conventions, the Republic of China should be alphabetized under letter T. The way you list it is biased. Can you please alphabetize it the right way?--Jerry 20:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I tried to update this template to reflect that there are two separate pages dealing with the Geography of the West Bank and Geography of the Gaza Strip, but I realise that this template functions for numerous other areas where Palestinian society is dealt with by a single entry. Does anyone have ideas as to how to ensure WB & GS appear for relevant entries, and Palestinian territories or Palestinian National Authority for their relevant entries? Many thanks, Tewfik^Talk 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The template is really for countries; smaller entities such as the West Bank or Gaza Strip are beyond its scope. If there are any articles where the information on the Palestinian territories is divided between them, perhaps it could redirect to the general article on the territories, or lead to a disambiguation page. Warofdreams talk

Not exactly, since tiny locations like Macau are included too. I am going to try inserting them in a format similar to those for China and Korea. Do comment and amend where neccesary.--Huaiwei 04:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the ²? It's physically separate from Africa? --Howard the Duck 14:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Transcontinental_country#Yemen.--Huaiwei 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That has to be very minuscule... but on what continental shelf Socotra sits?

It may be very minuscule, but we do have independent countries which are pretty minuscule too. Geographic size is irrelevant when talking about geographic boundaries. One square metre of sand across the continental divide, and thats transcontinental. Subjectivity dosent count in this regard.--Huaiwei 15:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought this is supposed to be an infobox, not a hair-splitting thesis on what is or isn't in Asia. Remove the footnotes.Kransky 14:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

When we originally didn't have the footnotes, countries such as Egypt with only a small amount of territory in Asia were repeatedly removed. However, their purpose is to remove this confusion, rather than to provide a lengthy description of the exact status of each nation. I've simplified the footnotes by merging them all into one. Warofdreams talk 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Greece is not transcontinental. All of Greece is located in Europe.

Islands that belong to Greece, therefore are European. So there is no reason to have Greece in the table. --219.90.228.195 12:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I've removed it. Warofdreams talk 16:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? First of all, the text ("Sovereign states") does not serve any purpose, but furthermore, it is completely inaccurate. Korea, Hong Kong, and the Palestinian territories are not sovereign states. I would take out the column completely, but I don't want to mess with the formatting. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This has just been applied to a few articles. If it is to stay, it really needs to have the link pulled out of it's heading. I think it is safe to say that we will never have (or need) a Presidents of Asia article - let's just make i a black non-link heading.

Further, I'm not a huge fan of these kind of templates - they try to link completely unrelated topics together. In fact, that is manifest by the fact that there is no Presidents of Asia article. It's really not that helpful. --Merbabu 02:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, i surprised myself and fixed it without problem. --Merbabu 02:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that broke it by removing useful functionality. The documentation will tell you how to fix it: use {{Asia topic|Presidents of|Alternative title}}. Warofdreams talk 00:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between this template and "{{Countries of Asia}}"? They seem have identical purpose.Vice regent 16:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This template is designed to be used with an argument, so for instance, it can be used on the History of Oman article to link to other History of... articles. That said, there may be a case for merging the two. Warofdreams talk 02:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Then basically this template has everything the other has and then some. Thus, why not delete the other one and keep this one?Vice regent 14:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that this template has had the PRC and ROC links removed. Huh?

If it's okay to reinstate them, how about the following to include the "China" link only when the corresponding article exists?:

......
{{#ifexist:{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} China{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}
  | [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} China{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|China]] ([[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}{{{suffix|}}}||the_}}People's Republic of China{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|People's Republic of China]]{{·w}} [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}{{{suffix|}}}||the_}}Republic of China{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|Republic of China]] ([[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Taiwan{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|Taiwan]])
  | [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}{{{suffix|}}}||the_}}People's Republic of China{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|People's Republic of China]]{{·w}} [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}{{{suffix|}}}||the_}}Republic of China{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|Republic of China]] ([[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Taiwan{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|Taiwan]]
}}{{·w}}
....

Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The People's Republic of China and Republic of China links are still there. Readin (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, my oversight; sorry. Although perhaps they'd be better sorted under "C" (i.e. next to the "China" link) as North/South Korea are next to the "Korea" link..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is less controversy surrounding the question of whether North Korea and South Korea are part of "Korea".Readin (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well... As it is finding People's Republic of China and the Republic of China from this template can be hard if you're looking for just China and don't know where to look at them. How is it not NPOV to consider them both China? At least they both consider themselves China. And how is it not NPOV to consider Macau and Hong Kong parts of China? At least those two shouldn't be listed in here as separate independent entities, as they are list at the moment. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Republic of China" is listed under "R" and "People's Republic of China" is listed under "P". I don't see what is difficult about that. However the Wikipedia naming conventions does allow for "People's Republic of China" to be listed under "C" and "Republic of China" to be listed under "T", so you can make that change if you want.

As for "both consider themselves China", we wouldn't talk about someone who has a Napoleon Complex in the "Napoleon" article. The ROC may consider itself "China" but a lot of people, both around the world and inside the country do not consider it to be "China" or even part of "China" .

I agree with you that Hong Kong and Macau are part of China, and that it would not violate NPOV to say so. However, in a list like the problem is how to list HK and Macau as part of China without taking a POV on Taiwan. If we create a special section for portions of China, we have to decide whether or not to include Taiwan in that section. Either decision - to include or exclude - violates NPOV.Readin (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Per your reference to naming conventions, I've implemented China / People's Republic of China / Republic of China (Taiwan) in the same way as Korea / North Korea / South Korea. Hope that's okay, as I'd be puzzled if links to the two entities currently associated with "China" weren't found beside the "China" link. Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Hong Kong and Macau? I think that they should either be listed with China (preferrably PRC as they are administrated by PRC), be removed entirely from this template as they are not sovereign states, or be noted as non-sovereign entities. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 06:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the naming conventions, ROC should be listed under "T", not "C", but I don't want to split hairs. For the very reason you mention, the expectation of where to find things, I've put a Taiwan link under "T". The "Republic of China / Taiwan" is non-standard. Either the "Taiwan" can be removed (it's listed under "T" so people can still find it) or the ROC entry should say "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Readin (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As for HK and Macau, I haven't seen any guidance that says all the topics listed here have to be sovereign states. Readin (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing says that only sovereign states should be in here, but as the other entities are sovereign states or have notes describing their status, HK and Macau should also have notes, be removed or grouped so that the note becomes unnecessary. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 13:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the notes describing status should be removed. It's unclear why they are there to begin with. Readin (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks very odd to have a footnote "Not fully independent." but not apply it to Hong Kong or Macau. No comment as to whether to add the note to those or remove the note from Palestinian Territories. Supplementary musing: Is it POV to have HK & M in this template but not Tibet? (Again no comment on addition or subtraction). --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it causes a POV problem to have HK and Macau links but not Tibet because I haven't seen any rules about what goes in and what doesn't. Without such rules, it looks like we just include stuff that will be considered important to a lot of people and that will have a lot of associated articles. HK is likely to have a lot of articles like "Economy of HK", "Sports in HK", "Culture of HK", etc. (I'm guessing and not bothering to check those). Does Tibet have similar interest and coverage? I don't think that's an NPOV question. It's more just an editorial judgment call. Readin (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added Tibet. It has the history, culture, economy, geography, and language articles.--Jerrch 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to claim Taiwan for "China". That is very POV and doesn't belong here. Listing ROC under C is one thing (and even violates Wikipedia naming conventions), but putting "China(PRC, ROC / Taiwan) goes too far - particularly given your concerns about listing only sovereign states which a "China" that includes both PRC and ROC is not. Readin (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that Taiwan is China. Taiwan just happens to be almost the entire territory of the Republic of China, which AFAIK claims to be China. Please, don't break the IF clauses in this template again. Now China is listed only if the article exists. If Taiwan article exists it's listed at T, but also noted by ROC listed at C. PRC is also listed at C. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about breaking the if clauses. I'm trying not to but I haven't seen a good reference on how they work. I'm cutting and pasting and trying to do so in non-invasive way.

I didn't fix the "China(PRC, ROC / Taiwan)" thing because I didn't have confidence I could do so without breaking more stuff. The way it should read is "*People's Republic of China*Republic of China(Taiwan)*" or if we were to follow naming conventions strictly, the "Republic of China(Taiwan)" should be listed alphabetically under "T" as either "Republic of China(Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)". The structure where ROC is a part of China by parenthetical inclusion, is a POV push and needs to go.Readin (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• The "Republic of China" existed before 1948/49, so how would that work here..? I sense there's a solution to all this, but can't quite work it out. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question as this Asia topic thing is likely to be used for some historical articles. With that being the case, it would make sense to omit the "(Taiwan)" from the "Republic of China", which is allowed under the naming conventions. The convention doesn't address the historical problems of listing the ROC under "T" but I'm not going to complain if you list it under "C" instead. The NPOV problem of listing ROC(Taiwan) as part of China needs to be avoided. Simply listing "China", "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" as equals will solve that problem and since there are no rules about what kind of entities may be listed, it won't cause any POV problems. Readin (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Here's a short explanation how the IF clauses work. They check if articles exist with names "China", "PRC", "ROC" and "Taiwan". Here's a short explanation how it works: (1) If "China" article exists "PRC" and "ROC/Taiwan" are in parenthesis after it. If it doesn't they are without any parenthesis alphabetised by "China". (2) If "Taiwan" article doesn't exist "ROC/Taiwan" is a single link, if it exists it's "ROC" link followed by non-link "/Taiwan". (3) "Taiwan" link at T is visible only when Taiwan article exists. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please fix it so that "China (PRC, ROC/Taiwan)" doesn't occur so as to avoid the NPOV violation. Otherwise I'll do it and I'll likely have trouble avoiding another breakage. Readin (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll try reorganizing the names, but first, with the "pre-1948/49 Republic of China" in mind, would like to know what you/anyone make of using the following:
  • "China¹" for the historical China (pre-1912) and, per the footnote below, the Republic of China from 1912-1948/49;
  • "Republic of China (Taiwan)", listed beside "China¹", for the "Republic of China" since 1948/49; the "(Taiwan)" acts as disambiguation from the Republic of China 1912-1948/49 and as reference to the informal moniker;
  • "People's Republic of China", listed beside "China¹" (hopefully self-explanatory);
  • "Taiwan", listed under "T", as alternative to "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Something like "Taiwan (island)" or "Taiwan (island group)" to be used for articles about Taiwan the island or island group whose content (mostly) pre-dates 1949 and/or is not about the "Republic of China" since 1949 per se..?
  • ¹ Includes the Republic of China from 1912 to 1948.

If the above or something very like it can work, I wonder if it could be applied to the various "China"/"Republic of China"/"Taiwan"-as-in-"Republic of China since 1948/49" articles, categories, etc. Or perhaps a "Republic of China (1912-1949)" label is needed? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The best way to divide up and label the articles related to Taiwan and China is the subject of a long ongoing discussion over at Talk:China and a separate but somewhat related discussion at Talk:Republic of China. I invite you to participate. Readin (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Jhattara, while I appreciate the good intentions you have behind the IF clauses, but I have had to remove them for two reasons:

• It is perfectly fine to have red links in templates. If anything, it encourages people to start those articles!
• Notice that the use of these clauses opens up a pandoras box, with some individuals thereby attempting to use it to advance certain positions. In such a context, it may be best to curtail too much flexibility, thus forcing a solution then an attempt to pacify everyone with each of their demands (you wont want the Burma/Myanmar debate to overflow to this page!)--Huaiwei (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The IF clauses weren't implemented by me, but I must admit I elaborated them a bit and tried to get them work as per editor intentions. I personally think that the current format is a lot better. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is Tibet included in the list? Its more of a province or region of China.--EZ1234 (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So regions and/or provinces of China shouldn't be on the list? Where are the guidelines/rules/conventions that say that? Given the size and nature of China (its more of an empire than a country) it makes sense for large or important regions to not be hidden under a single monolithic entry. Shanghai, for example, has 18,450,000 people. That's almost as many people as the entire population of countries like Australia and Taiwan. Readin (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why other regions or provinces are not listed? Why is Shanghai not in the list? If there is a political motivation behind this, it is not difficult to detect it.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many social, linguistic, historic, cultural, and economic difference between Tibet and China. Even if Tibet is politically part of the PRC, the size of the region and its identity make it significant enough to be listed.--Jerrch 01:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when is wikipedia in the business of defining cultural distinctions for nations to render it appriopriate to be selective in the inclusion of some non-sovereign states, and the exclusion of others? Where will this end? Are we going to also include all provinces of China, Indonesia, and India, many of thich has similar sizeable and distinct histories and cultures?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does "sovereign" keep being brought into this. Since when do only sovereign states get listed as having topics? If there is such a policy, then point it out. As for when it became the business of Wikipedia to recognize cultural distinctions and write about them, isn't a big part of editorial judgment? We have an article about History of Tibet but not one about "History of Yunan". Why is that? When did Wikipedia get the job of deciding which parts of the PRC should get their own history articles? If a region has a lot of articles and would often provide valid links when this template is used, then you have an argument for including it. If the region has few articles and wouldn't be used, that is a good argument against including it. Otherwise you have to use some judgment and discretion. Readin (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kindly see full history of this template, and that of similar templates of other continents. The sovereign state has been the primary determinant for inclusion for the longest time, and will remain as such unless individual entries demonstrate exeptional reason to buck the trend, as has been the case for Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan/ROC and Palentine, each of which are given special treatment in the UN or other major international non-aligned bodies. We will not allow a wikipedia template to become a target to discuss the political status of every possible entity.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! There is an article on the "History of Yunnan". No wonder you are easily confused on this issue as you can't even find a simple article. Nearly every country in the world if not all recognize Tibet as part of China. If you included Tibet then you would have to include Xinjiang, Ningxia, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi Auton Regions into the template.--Qu3ito (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I plead guilty to the misspelling of "Yunnan" as "Yunan" and did not find "History of Yunnan". I'm not sure what that changes, nor why you feel it gives you the right to be uncivil. It changes nothing and if I respected you I would explain why. Readin (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it goes to show what kind of nonsense research skills you have.--Qu3ito (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So what? So do Beijing, Tokyo, and San Diego, California. But we're not asking for these cities to be included in this template or the like, because they are cities. But Taiwan and Tibet are not just a political divisions. They are geographic and cultural entities (Taiwan being either the island+surrounding islands or the island itself). The article Tibet is separated from the article Tibet Autonomous Region, and Taiwan from Taiwan Province. Articles about Taiwan is not merely about the province. They deserve to be listed. This has nothing to do with a region being sovereign or not.--Jerrch 23:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly misinformed, for at least in the Chinese administrative setup, Beijing Municipality is a first level administrative division, it being one of the four municipalities in the PRC. Why do you not add Beijing then? To claim insertion of entries like Tibet over supposed "non-political reasons" is just a cover-up. There are plenty of other regions on earth which has equally striking cultural distinction from their mother countries, so are you going to start adding all of them? How do the existence of a dual Tibet/Tibet Autonomous Region article lend any weight for inclusion in this template, practically all of which are sovereign states (including the de facto states of Palestine and Tibet) except the two SARs of the PRC, which were included for reasons already explained and as per conventions in numerous publications?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I said very clearly that Beijing would not be listed because this template should not list things based on any political division or the administrative level (I have never said that Tibet had a higher level than Beijing), but rather, a geographical/cultural entity, for the term "Asia" is a geographical/cultural term used to describe a continent. There is a reason why Tibet has more sub-articles than Beijing. And since this template isn't called "Asian states topic," any territories listed here should be listed on this template if they have enough articles, in my opinion.--Jerrch 02:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Readin: You made this statement, "You show a clear unmistakable bias that you believe Taiwan and/or the ROC is not sovereign. Did I use that as an excuse to say you are incapable of being unbiased in editing the article? Please be civil and focus on the arguments rather than making personal attacks on the person you are working with" You have clearly misunderstood. If I consider Taiwan/ROC as non sovereign, I would be removing it completely from the list. Here I am explaining why Taiwan/ROC exists in a template usually reserved for sovereign states, and there you go making personal attacks and hailing unsubstantiated and uncivil accusations at me. If there is anyone who needs to read up on WP:Civil and WP:NPA, I am clearly not the one.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I, and anyone else, am fully empowered to move discussions as and when it makes sense, especially when you took a quotation from my comments and commented on it, yet decide to discuss it somewhere else. Would you not think that amounts to taking my comments out of context as well?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You quoted my comments and planted them in another section which misleads readers, since they will have a hard time finding where the orignal quotation originated, and to assess the context behind my comment. I have stated quite clearly that this is taking comments out of context, not once, but several times. In addition, you did not merely move your comments back. You also conveniently deleted my comments, including those not related to this discussion, despite my repeated warnings not to do so. Further deletion of my comments without my consent will be flagged as vandalism and dealth with accordingly.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the topic at hand, my view is that the listing of subjects should have nothing to do with sovereignty, independence, or any other political and debatable criteria. If there are enough articles about Tibet to warrant its listing at such a macro level, then yes, it should be listed. And if it does not, the no, it should not. On this point, I agree with Jerry. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see what are the opinions on this matter. To me the situation of China/PRC/ROC is a bit similar to the situation of Korea/DPRK/ROK and I think that this template should be consistent in handling these matters. And even more: Both DPRK and ROK are recognized by e.g. UN and are thus more separate independent entities than PRC and ROC. And yet in this template people seem to think that DPRK and ROK should be portrayed as more connected than PRC and ROC. So if one of them should be in parenthesis and the other not then it should be Chinas in parenthesis and Koreas without parenthesis. Although I'd support them both being in parenthesis. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to have "Korea (North Korea, South Korea")? "Korea, North Korea, South Korea" serve the same purpose. The UN has its POV as well which reflects the POV of the PRC. It does not follow that DPRK and ROK are "more independent" simply because both are recognized by the UN. The UN is not a neutral observer. Your POV that China/PRC/ROC is similar to Korea/DPRK/ROK is your POV, not NPOV. To me the situation is that Taiwan is an independent nation-state. The official name "Republic of China" is an inaccurate name left over from the days of Chinese colonialism under Chiang and his party. The official name is still there in part because Taiwan relies so much on the U.S. and the U.S. tells Taiwan not to do things like constitutoinal reform or name changes. Despite this heavy dependence on the U.S., Taiwan remains independent just as do other nations that rely heavily on the U.S. like Israel. So to me, "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" shouldn't be listed anywhere near "China". "Republic of China" shouldn't be in this template because the template contains the common names of modern entities. PRC should just be listed as "China" and ROC should be listed as "Taiwan". But that would be just as much my POV as your desire to lump Taiwan in with China. Readin (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From the official POV of PRC Taiwan is part of PRC. From the official POV of ROC Mongolia and PRC are part of ROC. Looking at these official POVs I'd say that it would not be NPOV to separate them as identifying only PRC with China and ROC only with Taiwan, as it would be against the official positions of both of these states. The public opinion and administrative decisions might be along the two Chinas end result, but AFAIK neither PRC nor ROC have renounced their claims to each others' territories. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 13:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You mention "public opinion". Does public opinion in Taiwan not count? Does the previous administration's opinion in democratic Taiwan not count? "official" is not equal to "neutral". We don't have an Official Point of View (OPOV) policy, we have a "Neutral Point of View" policy. With Taiwan in particular, the "official" point of view on such things is problematic because the "official" stuff was put in place while Taiwan was under the oppressive rule of the Chinese KMT. When democracy was finally brought to the island, people were finally able to voice their opinions, but the "official" policy was already locked in place by the needs of international diplomacy in keeping good relations with the United States. Despite the "official" policy, the first three presidential elections were won by people who did not consider Taiwan part of China, with only the most recent election being won by a pro-China candidate. We don't have a responsibility to be neutral between various states, we also have to be neutral between the states and their citizens. Readin (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And what makes you think that "public opinion" in Taiwan is invariably anti-China and pro-Taiwanese independence? Your outburst above clearly demonstrates a desire to fullfill a political motivation rather than a genuine desire to arrive at a solution which is amicable to all, ie, the NPOV stance you supposedly advocate.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My "outburst"? Anyway, what makes you think that I think that public opinion in Taiwan is "invariably anti-China and pro-Taiwanese independence"? I know there are quite a few people in Taiwan who think Taiwan is part of China. It is to be expected after 50 years of one-party rule where opposing opinions were forbidden and saying Taiwan wasn't part of China could get you arrested or killed. It is also expected that many people whose families came from China and still feel some attachment there would like to see Taiwan as part of China. But there are also plenty of Taiwanese who disagree, who see Taiwan as an independent country separate from China. The issue keeps coming up in Taiwan politics. We're supposed to be neutral and not take either side.Readin (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you may at least demonstrate what you are preaching. Your outright rejections of the notion that "Taiwan belongs to China" above clearly shows you are hardly capable of taking a nuetral stance and accomodating all viewpoints. This is all the more enforced by the obvious signs of extreme bias towards China in many of your comments, including the one above. Wikipedia is not a site for you to seek "political justice" for all the "injustice" you see in this world, nor is it a place for you to enforce your prejudice and assumptions without the backing of nuetral sources. I hope you may attain better understanding of the premise behind the WP:NPOV policy. Thank you.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Huaiwei: You made this statement, "The sovereign state has been the primary determinant for inclusion for the longest time, and will remain as such unless individual entries demonstrate exeptional reason to buck the trend, as has been the case for Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan/ROC" at 9:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC). You show a clear unmistakable bias that you believe Taiwan and/or the ROC is not sovereign. Did I use that as an excuse to say you are incapable of being unbiased in editing the article? Please be civil and focus on the arguments rather than making personal attacks on the person you are working with. Readin (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not move my statements out of their context again. Readin (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I quoted your comments elsewhere to contrast them with the comments I was responding to. When you move my statements out of context, only half of the statements are visible. I put the statements where I put them. They are my statements. If you think I left out important contextual information when I quoted you, then say so. You can copy your own statements more fully if you want. But don't move other editors' statements to make it look like they said something in a context where they did not. Readin (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found it neccesary to restore the template to what it was before, for it appears that in a matter of one month or so, a few motivated individuals are being to sculpt the template into one which treatens to irritate many and please no one. There has been reasons on how the Chinese/Taiwanese and Korean situations are represented here, which were discussed numerous times before and remains valid now. If people have problems failing to find a entity under a preferred letter when the entire infobox is no bigger then 3-4 lines of simple text, then clearly there is something more then politics at play here. Are we going to, and are we in the business, to pander to each demand?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is some politics at play when people attempt to put "Taiwan" as a subsection of "China". I've attempted to be compromising, allowing "Republic of China" to be listed next to the PRC even though the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Republic_of_China.2C_Taiwan.2C_and_variations_thereof clearly state that

Generally following the established convention of alphabetizing countries under their common names, the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) should be alphabetized under "T" while the People's Republic of China should be alphabetized under "C". The former can be listed, depending on context, either as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)"."

I hope the people who want push the POV that Taiwan is part of China can look at what is fair to both those who agree with them and to the millions of people who disagree with them. Readin (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The said layout does not, in anyway, suggest that "Taiwan" is a part of the "People's Republic of China". Instead, it is a reflection that there are two contesting "Chinas", and that the "People's Republic of China" and the "Republic of China" both point to the China article which as it stands now is about the ancient Chinese heritage which both entities are related to. This is far closer to NPOV than anything you suggest.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of "bad faith" editing as you did in your revert comments, please show the good faith of reading what I wrote. I did not say the layout suggested that '"Taiwan" is a part of the "People's Republic of China"'. I said the layout suggested Taiwan was a part of China. As for reflecting 'that there are two contesting "Chinas"', that is yet another POV we should not endorse. You're POV that Taiwan is a "China". The Republic of China references the "China" article because the Republic of China is a government whose origins are in China. The undisputed statement belief that the ROC was based in China prior to the 1940s does not imply that the ROC is still based in China or that the land it governs is part of China. The ROC government did something highly unusual in that it picked up and moved and now controls a territory with almost no overlap with its original territory. Some would say it simply occupied a different part of the same country. Others say it occupies a different country now. Those are both POVs that we should be neutral between.

Your accusations that I'm unable to be fair because my arguments show a POV are incorrect. I have been fair and have not tried to push an arrangement that would imply Taiwan is not part of China. I've simply tried to correct the implication that we believe it to be part of China. We need to be neutral between those beliefs. As for stating the arguments here, it is important that you understand the other POVs so you can be neutral between them. Readin (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess that the current format is acceptable to as many persons as possible. Just one thing left to be dealt with. Should Taiwan next to ROC be listed as other alternative names like this: Republic of China/Taiwan? And should Taiwan be linked from both of the locations or should the Taiwan link next to ROC disabled and made into plain text? Or should it be constructed so that ROC/Taiwan text would be a single link? What are your opinions about this? --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Sure, there are a billion people in China who believe Taiwan is part of China. But we're supposed to be neutral between all significant viewpoints and the view that Taiwan is not part of China is significant (three of that last four Taiwanese presidents have held that view). Readin (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I know very well the viewpoint that Taiwan is completely separate from China is significant. (I myself am a strong proponent for the de jure separation of Taiwan from China. At the moment it's only de facto as ROC still officially keeps the view that their sovereignty encompasses Mongolia and territories held by PRC) But so is the opposing viewpoint. I think that in this case both viewpoints must be represented to uphold NPOV. I was just wondering should Taiwan be used in this template as an alternative name (slash instead of parenthesis) for the Republic of China and which of the Taiwan links should be used and which of them should be blackened (as per MOS:LINK)? --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan's inclusion in this template is itself a recognition of its de jure status as a sovereign state. If I may explain why the Taiwan entry appears as it is now, the Republic of China actually comprises of two parts: Taiwan Province (which comprises of the island of Taiwan) and Fujian Province (currently including the island groups of Kinmen, Matsu and other islands). The "Taiwan" article is not an alternative name of the "ROC" but is a reference to the island. Thus, we don't write "Republic of China/Taiwan" in this template, but "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to reflect that "Taiwan island" is part of the "ROC". If there has been more articles on Kinmen, for example, we would have "Republic of China (Kinmen · Taiwan)".--Huaiwei (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Readin's comments are peppered full of inconsistencies, and full of misconceptions about what is fact and what constitutes my personal opinion. For example:

• "Taiwan was a part of China" - Well, Taiwan was indeed a part of China (pre-PRC) at least during some time of its history.
• "there are two contesting "Chinas" - This is not a POV. This is a fact as well explained by many others time and again, and is a political reality that nations dealing with the "two Chinas" continously face. Wikipedia need not endorse a POV, but it is obliged to reflect it.
• "You're POV that Taiwan is a "China"" - This is not my POV. As long as the Republic of China considers itself the legitimate government of "China", and that it safeguards Chinese interests, then it remains as fact.

Claiming not to push a POV over the status of Taiwan, and then denouncing Taiwan's own official proclaimations and claims cannot be more contrasting. Claiming to adhere to NPOV, and then trying to insert "Taiwan" as in independent entity in a country list is considered "getting closer to NPOV"[3]. Let's be realistic here, for one can't have his cake and eat it too.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You say that 'there are two contesting "Chinas"' is not POV, it is fact. Yet both of the governments you cite to support your next contention that Taiwan is part of China, reject the POV that "there are two contesting "Chinas"". The PRC strongly rejects it and insisted on a "one China" policy as the basis for negotiations with Taiwan and insists on it as the basis for diplomatic relations with all other countries.

As for your "fact" that Taiwan is part of China, it is a fact that the Republic of China government claims to be part of China. But that claim no more makes it part of China than having a Napoleon Complex makes one Napoleon. Whether Taiwan is part of China remains POV whichever side you take.

Anyway, Wikiepedia has policies which I've stated before. In the absence of agreement to do something else we should simply follow those policies and I've made the relevent edits. Readin (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you display a marked handicap in reading and fully comprehending comments made by others. For example:

• "You say that 'there are two contesting "Chinas"' is not POV, it is fact." No I did not simply say this. I said you had "misconceptions about what is fact and what constitutes my personal opinion.", and that "there are two contesting "Chinas" - This is not a POV. This is a fact...", hence telling you that "'there are two contesting "Chinas"' is not MY POV, it is fact". I have to remind this, because you continue to push POVs in my direction without me ever claiming to support them.
• "Yet both of the governments you cite to support your next contention that Taiwan is part of China, reject the POV that "there are two contesting "Chinas"" In actual fact, I said it "is a political reality that nations dealing with the "two Chinas" continously face." Kindly find any part of my comment which suggests that it was the PRC or the ROC which recognises the "two Chinas"?
• As for your "fact" that Taiwan is part of China. As a matter of fact, I said "Taiwan was indeed a part of China (pre-PRC) at least during some time of its history." Do you have facts to render this as false?

Indeed, wikipedia has policies, and amongst them, they require all to seek WP:Concensus when facing disputes. Have you done that before deciding to unilaterally change what has been agreed upon and has remained fairly stable for some time now?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dropping by from Talk:Cross-strait charter, and wish to note that the view that Taiwan is a "country", though seemingly common in some Western media sources, is controversial and supported only by the most extreme end of the political spectrum in Taiwan and elsewhere in Asia.

Otherwise, broadly in support of what Huaiwei is saying. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I personally believe that Taiwan is a country, I respect the fact that it may not be NPOV. But if Taiwan isn't a country, than what makes China or Korea a country? If we are just going to list sovereign states here, those should not be listed.--Jerrch 16:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia...

• the China article talks about Chinese heritage, culture and civilisation etc.
• the Korea article talks about Korean heritage, culture and civilisation etc.
• the Taiwan article talks about the island of Taiwan.

At the same time,

• the People's Republic of China is a sovereign state recognised by some other sovereign states.
• the Republic of China is a sovereign state recognised by some other sovereign states.
• North Korea and South Korea are sovereign states recognised by some other sovereign states.

So can you tell us how this template fails to account for all the above?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the listing criterion should be whether something is a "sovereign state" or a "country", whatever that means. It should just be what, geographically speaking, topics we have lots of articles about.

So things like "3. not fully independent" are also problematic. What's "fully independent"? Is Bhutan fully independent? If not fully independent, is the country [or whatever one wishes to call it] half-independent? 20% independent?

Clearly, there's something that connects mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau, regardless of one's political views: which is a cultural and ethnic unity recognised by the peoples of all these places (see Zhonghua minzu, especially the way it is invoked in Taiwanese politics). Ditto with Korea. I think the current listing is fine, so long as we don't pretend to classify the listed things as "countries", or "half-independent", or whatever. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The view that Taiwan is part of China is a POV as extreme as Taiwan is an sovereign state. I believe the most neutral thing to do is to have China (People's Republic of China · Republic of China), and have the Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and Tibet listed alphabetically elsewhere.

Then we would remove the "not fully independent" note. After all the title of the template isn't "Asian states topic."--Jerrch 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find that the view that Taiwan is a sovereign state is one extreme view, while the other extreme view is that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China.

The view that Taiwan is a part of a cultural or ethnic "China" which is a larger concept than either the People's Republic or Republic of China is actually a relatively mid-point view.

For example, when Taiwanese politicians talk about the mainland and Taiwan both being part of the Zhonghua minzu, they are invoking a supra-political cultural and ethnic concept. Similarly, when the United States expresses its "one China policy" as Taiwan being a part of a "China" that is greater than the political boundaries of the People's Republic of China, they are adopting this mid-way view as well.

I still think the present treatment is fine, so long as we don't pretend to classify the entities listed as states or non-states, independent or non-independent. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The other extreme end of the view that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China is that the Republic of Taiwan is a sovereign and independent state, and not Taiwan is a sovereign country. I believe the cultural or ethnic "China" you're talking about is "Greater China," so the view that Taiwan is part of China is extreme as well.

I still believe that Taiwan should not be listed under "China," either directly or indirectly, it should not be implied at all.--Jerrch 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The present treatment is fine to someone who strongly believes Taiwan is part of China. It is not fine to those who do not share that particular Point of View. What is the problem with using one of the formulas that have been used successfully in other articles - listing Republic of China (Taiwan) under 'T', or listing Taiwan, HK, Macau, China, ROC and PRC at equal levels without trying to group them? Readin (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been explained repeatedly why the current format has stayed constant in its bid to be acceptable to the middle group rather than those who hold extremist views. You have failed to address them, instead preferring to simply insist on listing "Taiwan" as a distinct entry. Clearly, you happen to hold to one of those extreme views, and attempting to list Taiwan on its own is a direct reflection of an attempt to establish its independence. In no way can "Taiwan, HK, Macau, China, ROC and PRC" be listed as equals, for they are clearly overlapping terms.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Actually, Jerry, - the commonplace view you refer to is that the Republic of China is sovereign and independent, which is different from the view that Taiwan is sovereign and independent.

As to "Greater China" - that is a term of Western origin and is mkeaningful in an economic or commerce context only, since the territories counted under it are separate economies, regardless of one's political views.

Taiwan being a part of a cultural and ethnic, as opposed to political, China, seems to be something that has broad consensus in Taiwan and elsewhere. I find it a little strange that the more extreme position that denies this view has such currency outside Taiwan. Perhaps it's because the English term "China" makes no distinction between the political entity and the cultural entity. In Chinese, though, the distinction is fairly clear. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I would classify the spectrum of opinions regarding Taiwan's relations with (the rest of) China in Taiwan as something like this:

• Taiwan is both politically independent and also ethnically and culturally and geographically separate from China. The two are distinct nations.
• Taiwan is politically independent from the Chinese state but ethnically and culturally part of the same Chinese nation in ethnic, cultural or geographic terms.
• Taiwan is politically part of the Republic of China, which is co-equal with the People's Republic of China, and both are part of the same Chinese nation.
• Taiwan is politically part of the Republic of China, which is the government of all China.
• Taiwan is legally and should politically be part of the People's Republic of China.

My view is that the middle three positions capture the majority of views in Taiwan. The current treatment, once we stop pretending to classify places as independent or sovereign or not, is consistent with the three middle positions and not with the two extreme positions.

As I said, I appreciate that the distinction between the Chinese state and the Chinese nation is difficult to express in English, but in Chinese it is quite clear, and at times can be crucial. E.g. is Taiwan "Chinese (cultural) Taipei" or "Chinese (political) Taipei" in the Olympics? That's something that poses a problem for the Chinese press all the time. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording used for the Olympics was agreed to while Taiwan was still under the control of the Chinese KMT before becoming a democracy. The Taiwanese people had no say in the matter. Most people in Taiwan will say they share common ancestry and much common culture with China, that they are ethnically Chinese, but is it true they will say Taiwan is part of 'China'? For an American this is hard to understand. Most Americans have at least some English ancestry, and most Americans speak English, but we don't say we are part of England. The vast majority of Americans have European ancestry, and nearly all speak a European language but we don't say we are part of Europe. Similar things can be said for other places where the majority of the people are ethically European.

At best the page as it currently stands leads to confusion because it is written in English, not Chinese, and as you say no distinction is made between the "ethnic" territory and the political territory. Readin (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are keen to discredit the KMT government while it was in power (supposed demonstration of NPOV?). If indeed this was true, could you explain why the governments which were elected by the people do nothing to change the name to anything they prefer then?

I am an ethnic Chinese myself, lives in a country fully recognised by most countries on Earth as an independent state, bears absolutely no allegiance to the Chinese state, yet recognises my Chinese roots and remains fully interested in many things relevant to Greater China. The China-Taiwan question is in no way similar to the colonisation of the Americas, and the fact that the vast majority of Americans today were descendants of people who willingly migrate from Europe to seek a better life. Most of the millions of Overseas Chinese who live around the world today in their adopted homes are certainly not clamouring to form vassal Chinese states either, have no problems identifying themselves as ethnic Chinese, and do not consider themselves as part of the PRC too. You do not need to look very far from China to better understand the situation there...read up on Korea, for one. Germany and Vietnam would be suffering from the same fate too if two states with different political ideologies remain. Please do not simplistically apply American indifference and ignorance towards Europe upon the entirety of American society, and to believe that this can be applied to any other circumstance around the world.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Readin, I appreciate that there are major cultural differences between the conception of "the nation" and "the state" between East Asian cultures (China, Korea) on the one hand and modern, Western nations such as the US. It is indeed true that the American "nation" has very much separated from the British (not just English, I believe, if you take a look at the number of Scots, Welsh and Irishpeople around you). That, however, is not so trivially true in Taiwan. Is there a separate Taiwan "nation" to the Chinese "nation"? Remmeber that I'm talking about a cultural or ethnic nation, not the political state. Yes, for some people on the very Green end of the spectrum, certainly they feel completely alienated from the Chinese nation. What about for the majority? My submission is that, no, there isn't such a separation of nationality.

What is my evidence for that contention? The invocation of the "Chinese people" in politics. The landslide electoral victories of the KMT. The celebration of Chinese culture in Taiwan, and the often-repeated view that Taiwan is the last bastion of true, traditional Chinese culture.

To paraphrase something Wu Po-hsiung has said, a Taiwanese identity does not imply a self-identification outside the Chinese nation. Do the Scots see themselves as simultaneously Scottish and British? Some certainly don't, but the majority probably do. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The view that Taiwan is part of China is not without evidence or supporters, but the view that Taiwan is not part of China also has evidence and supporters. No one is saying we should ignore the view that Taiwan is part of China, just that we should take a neutral point of view that recognizes the views of both sides. I've attempted several different compromises but they've all been reverted despite the fact that the compromises have been used on other pages and have been more accommodating to the pro-China side than is required by the naming conventions. Readin (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Identifying as Taiwanese does not preclude also identifying as Chinese. But identifying oneself as "Chinese" does not mean one agrees that Taiwan is part of China anymore than identifying as "African American" means you believe America is part of Africa. Many Taiwanese likely seem themselves as Taiwanese by by birth and Chinese by ancient ancestry. Either way, there still remain a significant portion who seem themselves as Taiwanese only. Readin (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, PalaceGuard (replying to the outdented thread). I was not talking about the view that the Republic of China is a sovereign state, but the view that Taiwan is a sovereign state. This view is not only held as the former ruling DPP's primary stance but it was also mentioned by President Ma Ying-jeou during his presidential campaign.--Jerrch 02:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay Jerry, I can accept that. My main argument in the outdented section related to the cultural/ethnic rather than the political identity. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Readin, with respect, I must suggest that American (and generally Anglophone) analogies as to ethnicity and nationality are not very helpful in the given context. That an African American does not identify as being Senegalese or whatever has limited comparative value to the self-identification of a person in Taiwan because of the incomparable history and present circumstances of the two. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since we have possibly reached a consensus that we are going to do the listing based on cultural distinction, I believe it is necessary to have Taiwan separated from ROC and China. Having Taiwan listed in brackets after the ROC implies that Taiwan is part of the ROC (not only politically but also culturally, economically, and historically), but for many, the Republic of China is merely one part of the Taiwanese identity. For that matter, wouldn't this template list them as Taiwan (Republic of China) then? So who decides which one we pick? Either way it would be POV. Therefore I humbly propose to list these articles separately as if they are independent entities (which they really are). I would, though, accept having PRC and ROC under China. They are both Chinese governments afterall.-Jerrch 21:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My preference would be "China (PRC, ROC, mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan)" depending on whether there are enough articles on each topic to warrant inclusion. This would eliminate the Taiwan-ROC subordination issue, but still maintain the China-Taiwan cultural/ethnic nexus. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

(Outdent) I think that would still run into some POV issues. I do agree that Taiwan has some cultural/ethnic association with China, but that connection also applies on Korea, Japan (culturally), and Singapore (culturally and partially ethnically). The only thing that makes Taiwan more connected with China is the fact that it is administrated by the Republic of China, but since we aren't suppose to sort these articles politically, we shouldn't really consider that.

So I think that the best way would still be to list them as independent entities. This way we aren't implying that these entities aren't part of China, similar to the International Olympic Committee, which has Hong Kong as a member (but everyone still knows that it is part of China); and we aren't implying that they are either. If anyone wants to take a stand on whether Taiwan is part of China or not, they could go to the article and read more. I believe this would be the most neutral and possibly most reasonable listing.--Jerrch 02:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I doubt that mainland China would have a lot of sub-articles, most of these are either at China or PRC. And the listing proposed above is the same version I mentioned earlier, which has ROC and PRC listed under China as an option.--Jerrch 03:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how listing all the above as independent entities from the China entry can be interpreted has having no implication of them being independent from China. The example of Hong Kong is moot, unless you are intending to start listing all those entries as "Hong Kong, China", "Macau, China", and..."Taiwan, China [Republic of]" or something? As far as international representation is concerned, the two SARs do have ",China" suffixes. Are you going to consider "Chinese Taipei" (as used by the IOC), or even, "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu" (WTO)?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just giving an example of how it can be not implied. As far as I know, Hong Kong is in fact listed as Hong-Kong under IOC. And I certainly was not proposing to have listings similar to international organizations. But regardless, if we do put all of these entities in parentheses after China, we are forcing the readers to accept the view that Taiwan is part of China politically, culturally, and economically (depending on which template we use: Politics of Asia, Culture of Asia, or Economy of Asia). I truly believe that my proposal is by far the most neutral way to list these articles. Since this template serves as a broad navigational template instead of an informational template, it should be up to the readers to decide whether Taiwan is part of China or not.--Jerrch 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerry, I can't accept listing Taiwan (and Hong Kong, etc) separately from ROC/PRC or China and as an independent item in the list.

I do, however, have a proposal which I wonder if you can agree to:

List China, ROC, and PRC as separate entries (near each other), and list Taiwan under ROC, and Hong Kong, Macau, and Mainland China under PRC. This way, no hierarchy is implied between ROC/PRC and "China". A hierarchy is implied between ROC and Taiwan, but that's the facts, isn't it? The ROC rules Taiwan.

Something else I can accept, just following on your discussion of the IOC matter, is to only list mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, and forget "China", whatever that is - and get rid of "Korea" too, for parity. Schematically this makes sense since these are all separate jurisdictions and (relatively) separate economies. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot accept the first proposal you have. To list Taiwan under ROC would be POV regardless of whether ROC rules Taiwan or not, because we are forcing the readers to accept the view that Taiwan is part of the Republic of China politically, culturally, economically, etc. Let alone the fact that the ROC is only part of the Taiwanese history. So it is impossible to decide whether we list it as Taiwan (Republic of China) or Republic of China (Taiwan) without running into POV issues.

I think your second proposal is more neutral, but it also removes a whole lot of China and Korea sub-articles. And I believe we would actually keep the China and Korea articles and instead remove the ROC, PRC, ROK, and DRK articles, because we are listing based on cultural/ethnic identities (we have the Chinese people and Korean people articles but not "PRC people" or "South Korean people"). This would be the most neutral possible.--Jerrch 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If this template is used for historical topics, then Jerrch makes a good point about Taiwan and the ROC have separate histories. The same point would also apply to Hong Kong, Macau, and China (and the PRC too). If the template is used for historical topics, then we should be splitting these guys up. Since there is no guideline saying only independent/soveriegn entities should be listed this should not present a problem.

Otherwise, if historical topics are not in play, then we should focus on the present. I would obviously prefer that Taiwan be listed separately under T but not under C, as thsi reflects currently reality and follows the naming conventions. A more helpful approach for people trying to find things and a more NPOV approach in the spirit of providing both sides of a dispute, is to list Taiwan/ROC in both places people will look for them, under 'T' and under 'C', this would make things easier to find and better satisfy NPOV. Readin (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This template is used for both historical and contemporary topics. Probably the most NPOV way to list ROC/Taiwan would be to list it in both C and T. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Readin refers to "TAiwan and the ROC having separate histories". You can say the same about any bit of territory that has not been always under the control of the government that now controls it - Hokkaido has "separate histories" to Japan (and Okinawa even more so). Siberia has "separate histories" to Russia, and every island in Indonesia has "spearate histories" to Indonesia.

It's misleading to go down that route in an attempt to define what should be separate and what should not be. It seems an indisputable fact to me that the ROC is the government of Taiwan, and the two must be listed either adjacently or nestedly.

I take the point about this template being also used for historical topics - when the ROC did not represent or control Taiwan. Therefore, I think "China (PRC, ROC, mainland China, Hong Kong, ?Macau?, Taiwan) is the most neutral listing, unless we ditched China altogether. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Any formulation that has Taiwan only as part of China, and not also separate, is going to have a serious NPOV problem.

Most nation articles are organized based on the present, as your examples with Siberia, Okinawa, and you could add Tibet (though can't think of many acquisitions as recent as ROC takeover of Taiwan). So I don't have a problem with the ROC-Taiwan linkage. To separate them for historic purposes would require a lot of complexity in designing either a single the template that morphs based on the time period, or designing a lot of separate templates for the separate time periods. Neither seems like a realistic alternative at this point. I think Jhattara is right that the best way to handle this is to list Taiwan/ROC twice. First, we can have under 'C': China(PRC(Macau, HK, Tibet), ROC(Taiwan)) and then under 'T' we can have Taiwan(ROC). That addresses the NPOV issue by following the well-accepted solution of giving voice to both sides of a dispute. Readin (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ROC "takeover" of Taiwan, as you put it, from Japanese occupation, occurred in 1945. The Partition of India occurred in 1947. Japan "took over" Okinawa from US occupation in the 1970s. India took over Sikkim in 1973. The Indian invasion of Goa was in 1961. China acquired sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, and Macau in 1999.

These are only some of the territory changes that have occurred in our region since 1945 - and I'm not counting the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the independence of Papua New Guinea (1975), East Timor (2002), or Singapore (1965).

I regard the view that Taiwan is separate from "China" the cultural nation (equivalent of "Korea", and as opposed to any particular political state) as extreme, and I see very little evidence supporting it. Apart from the rhetoric of perhaps the most extreme factions of the TSU, it seems to me that no credible body or person denies the "minimum consensus" that Taiwan and mainland China are both part of a supra-political entity of "China".--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is such an emphasis on sovereign states, why are Hong Kong and Macau in the list? Neither is sovereign nor has anyone ever suggested that they are or ever have been. If Tibet is excluded because it is part of China, then Hong Kong and Macau should be removed for the same reason. Readin (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau are listed as special administrative regions of PRC. Special administrative regions of PRC hold more autonomy than the autonomous regions of PRC. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Entries are not added based on their level of autonomy. They are added based on how most publications list countries, as per WP:V, where Hong Kong and Macau regularly appear. They frequently appear as distinct entities in international organisations, with the appriopriate "China" qualifyer, in particular those related to the United Nations, Sports organisations, economic blocs and the like. No other subdivision of the PRC consistently receives such treatment, including Tibet. Attempting to push for Tibet at the expense of other PRC subdivisions (how about Xinjiang then?), or attempting to remove HK and Macau just because Tibet is missing is obviously pushing a political point.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Given our inability to agree on so simple a thing as what constitutes civil behavior, the chance that we will ever agree on NPOV seems remote. As such we must resort to Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Republic_of_China.2C_Taiwan.2C_and_variations_thereof clearly state that

Generally following the established convention of alphabetizing countries under their common names, the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) should be alphabetized under "T" while the People's Republic of China should be alphabetized under "C". The former can be listed, depending on context, either as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)"."

If we can't voluntarily follow the guidelines I'll look for an administrator to do some enforcement. Readin (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

First, kindly read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and avail yourself with the difference between a wikipedia policy[4] and guideline[5], which a naming convention falls under. Do not attempt to assume you are empowered to enforce a "policy" punitively when you are actually pushing a POV via a naming convention.

Second, the said section of the naming convention you chose to refer to and to enforce[6], as it stands, remains disputed and cannot be considered binding. There is no concensus as yet that the "Republic of China" should appear under "T", neither it there a concensus that the Taiwan article should be about the Republic of China (or that the China article is about the People's Republic of China), hence it is entirely moot to use the "common names" arguments in this context.

You are most welcome to invite an administrator, but you might have to be made aware that admins are not judges, and do not make content decisions. You are once again reminded not to abuse wikipedia's processes to pursue personal agendas.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Readin and Huaiwei, you obviously can't agree with each other re these edits. Please discuss it on the talk page and achieve consensus with other editors before changing the page again. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)