Important notice: Prior consensus has decided that Taiwan is to be referred to as a country.
Changes to the article to refer to Taiwan as a state, island, province of China, or other definition are not permitted and may be reverted. See here for the 2020 RfC in which editors reached this decision.
Please do not add Simplified characters and tongyong pinyin to the country infobox.
The topic of this article is the Republic of China although its title has been moved to Taiwan.
Please refrain from adding "(Taiwan)" indiscriminately because this article includes historical information about the Republic of China as well as Taiwan.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about "country" vs "state", and "Taiwan" vs "Republic of China", and "Taiwan is a part of China", and "Taiwan is a province of China". Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting on that topic.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Determine whether Taiwan should be called a 'country' or 'state'
Complete: Consensus has been reached for Taiwan to be called a 'country'. The consensus was 33 for country, 10 for state, and 5 for some variation of state. Here is the page on which consensus was reached
Add a short section about the culture and the geography of the ROC territories (with links to the main articles)
Review alt text of images
Should the role and influence of Sun Yat-sen be introduced in the History section?
Taiwan was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Keoni Everington (2020-06-15). "Wikipedia finally designates Taiwan as 'country'". Taiwan News. Retrieved 2020-06-16. In a request for comments (RFC) page created to debate the proper status of Taiwan in its Wikipedia entry, editors in May fiercely debated the merits of referring to Taiwan as a "state" or a "country."
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Taiwan was copied or moved into Sports in Taiwan with this edit on 22 October 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan
Taiwan's most famous dish is called "LuRouFan"
(added to the introduction for Taiwan's food and what it is popular for )
because i think it very important for visitor to know about Taiwan, and what Taiwan is famous of, and famous food
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under Health section, at the very end, to better compare Taiwan's healthcare system standing to others in the world, we should add:
add----
Taiwan's healthcare system is among the best in the world. It has consistently ranked first for six consecutive years in the Health Care Index published by CEOWORLD magazine. Combining quality healthcare, affordability, and convenience, Taiwan is an increasingly popular destination for medical tourism.
As with dozens of previous cases, we are not obliged to endlessly relitigate the same fundamental question on this page, even if it is initially presented from a novel angle. Per WP:TWRFC, we refer to Taiwan as a country. Remsense ‥ 论14:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In WP:SDNOTDEF: It should use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be(not is)understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional.
In para 4 we say: The political status of Taiwan is contentious.
No actual reason other than legalism to do this only in the short description, and we've very firmly established that we refer to Taiwan as a country. Apologies to the thin end of yet another wedge here. Remsense ‥ 论21:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the short description is for; it is a navigational aid, not a rigorous definition. We refer to Taiwan as a country throughout the article, and this is no different. Remsense ‥ 论06:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should introduce the dispute into the lede sentence, as it's so contentious.
The lead as written presents the issues at hand in a proportionate manner. That suggestion was (in my opinion) totally unviable. We present all sides of an issue proportionally, but we do not assume some "neutral" position of our own invention via qualifying any contested statement of fact whatsoever. The majority position is that Taiwan is a country; we assume that position while giving the others their due. It is in any case immaterial, as the community consensus is clear. Cheers. Remsense ‥ 论06:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the process through which the community consensus was formed, and it seems that it did not result in the kind of "consensus" we typically refer to in everyday life. Ultimately, it became a vote that hastily concluded the RFC. In daily life, we usually reach an understanding through discussion, where one side’s perspective becomes more reasonable and acceptable to the other. However, from the process of closing this RFC, it seems that the editor who closed it was not concerned with what was more reasonable or more easily accepted; they simply tallied the votes on both sides and "declared a victory."
I noticed that some people provided long arguments, while others merely said "I agree with xx," yet in the end, their results were equivalent—they both counted as just one vote.
Some that said "de facto" were not listed separately in the end. Therefore, adding modifiers like "de facto country" or "country with limited recognition" does not actually contradict this consensus.
It seems that the editor who closed the RFC already had a personal inclination towards supporting the "country" position.(in fact I'd say country has a stronger argument, and he didn't say it.)
Additionally, I noticed that some reliable sources listed in the RFC seem to have altered their wording. (It's especially important to note that sometimes "country" might be a general term that includes dependent territories.) Therefore, I believe this RFC is still open to discussion. 36.230.3.161 (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what we mean by wp:consensus is not the same as the common use of the word, as any consensus must be policy-based. If there are 100 votes for "a small elephant of the coast of China" and one vote for "what rs call it (sources)", the one vote will win every time. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.
As I mentioned earlier, I noticed that some people provided detailed arguments, while others simply said "I agree with xx," yet in the end, their results were treated equally—they both counted as just one vote. So i don't think he did so. 36.230.3.161 (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A, that is an assumption. B, even if true saying I agree with X X does not mean it's not policy-based, it just means that XX said it first and they have nothing more to add. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, since no new practical information has been added, the likelihood of adoption should not increase; however, the number of votes is growing, creating what is referred to as a "numeric consensus."36.230.3.161 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take this comment as a sign of WP:DONTLIKEIT and suggest that you either bring forth a new argument and sources, or move on to the next topic. You have not reasonably supported the case for making any edits with rationale or new sources. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least from the first few search results, terms like "island" or "self-ruled island" clearly appear more frequently than "country."
Extended content
island:
Tensions have risen sharply in recent years over Taiwan, the democratically ruled island that China claims as its own... // The island 's defence minister
Taiwan is an island that is for all practical purposes independent, but China sees it as a rebel region and insists that other countries should not have diplomatic relations with it.
Taiwan's current president has sparred with Beijing over the island 's political future. In January, Xi Jinping said Taiwan "must and will be" reunited with China.
That the status is contentious is itself a contentious position. The fact that it is a country is backed by reliable sources (fact) but challenged by governments or organizations (politics). We should not introduce these policy positions in the short description or lede. There are numerous other traits about the country that can take priority over its political status, and we do not include those either Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I originally wanted to discuss the short description, but it seems the focus of the discussion has shifted to the lead. The lead also has issues.36.230.3.161 (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With this I am out of here with a firm no to whatever change is being discussed, we have had a policy-based consensus, and nothing new (here) has been added to overturn that. The Short description is a summary of a summary of a summary, and cannot have nuance. This is just going around in circles with one (SPA, IP) going NO. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unless the entire media landscape fundamentally changes, WP:TWRFC is as clear as consensus gets for a question like this on here. At this point, anyone who wants to try their hand at sealioning can take it directly to ArbCom, so that they can deny certiorari on it instead of more of our time being wasted here. Remsense ‥ 论14:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)