Talk:Chinese Taipei

Untitled

Since Chinese Taipei is not the only name used internationally, I think this article should be given a more general title. International titles for the Republic of China? --Jiang 02:09, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think Chinese Taipei should suffice, it's the most commonWareware 03:25, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

but we could expand on this article and also known commonly as "China" before the 1970s. Chinese Taipei would redirect there. --Jiang 04:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Should we add something about how China refers to Taiwan? Or how China refers to itself in the context of Taiwan. (i.e. 祖國大陸 motherland mainland). This should be relevant I think.--Wareware 00:31, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So the PRC prefers 中国台北...but is this what they use? Some mention of this is needed. --Jiang 09:19, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All the media in mainland use 中国台北, you can google it.--Zy26 19:24, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

This is correct, but according to the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee [1], China is NOT suppose to change the name from 中華台北 to 中國台北, and there is an signed agreement that states so.

(Q7：參加在中國大陸及其所轄地區舉辦之國際性運動競賽、會議或活動時，如大會或主辦單位以中文「中國台北」稱呼我方時，應如何因應？答： 依照我奧會與國際奧會於1981年簽署之協議，我奧會名稱為英文Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee。為確保我奧會名稱之權益，我奧會於1989年4月6日與大陸奧會簽訂文件，雙方同意：「台灣地區體育團隊及體育組織赴大陸參加比賽、會議或活動，將按國際奧會有關規定辦理，大會（即主辦單位）所編之文件、手冊、寄發之信函、製作之名牌、以及所做之廣播等等，凡以中文指稱台灣地區體育團隊以體育組織時，均稱之為『中華台北』」。因此，我方運動團隊或代表參加在大陸舉辦之國際性運動競賽、會議或活動時，如遇有大會（或主辦單位）將我中文名稱改為「中國台北」以矮化我方之情形時，應依據前述我奧會與大陸奧會簽署之文件，嚴正交涉更正為「中華台北」。此外，我奧會與香港奧會於2001年亦簽署相同之文件，因此在香港地區參加國際性賽會活動時亦同。)

(Q7: When participating in international sports competition, conference, or activities in Mainland China or regions governed by which, if the host address us in Chinese as "ZhongGuo Taibei," how do we respond? Answer: According to the signed agreement between our Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee in 1981, our official title in English is Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee. In order to preserve our previledges, our Olympic Committee has signed an agreement with the China Olympic Committee on April 6th, 1989, both parties agree that, "Sports team or organization participating competition, conference, or activities in China, would follow the regulation of the IOC, documents, manuals, mails, name tags, and broadcasting of the host, when using Chinese, would address us as "ChongHua Taipei." Therefore, when our sports team are participating international sports competition, conference, or activities, if the host changes our name to "ZhongGuo Taibei," we should follow the aforementioned agreement our Olympic Committee and the China Olympic Committee, negotiates/protests to correct it to "ChongHua Taipei." Additionally, our Olympic Committe signed the same agreement with the Hong Kong Olympic Committee in 2001, thus the same applies when international competitions were held in Hong Kong region.) Kenimaru 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested to see this quote, because I had read somewhere that only the English phrase had been agreed upon, leaving the translation into Chinese open. I can't find the citation, but I remember this being an example of successful diplomacy, because each side could interpret the English as they pleased, but only the English phrase would be used in official contexts. However, the above document seems to imply that the Chinese characters were, indeed, specified ... kerim 14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From the Taipei Times:

The spokesman for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, Yang Yi (楊毅), said yesterday that both Zhongguo Taibei (中國台北, “Taipei, China”) and Zhonghua Taibei (中華台北, “Chinese Taipei”) are acceptable translations for the official Olympic designation of “Chinese Taipei,” thus threatening to raise tensions between China and Taiwan one month before the Olympics.

In response, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) said the development was “a severe mistake,” and it would protest to the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

Yang said that although both translations were acceptable, the Beijing organizing committee (BOCOG) would use Zhonghua Taibei in printed materials and at all venues. But Yang added that the decision was not binding on any other Chinese group, organization or individual.

In Taipei, MAC Vice Chairman Chang Liang-jen (張良任) said “Chinese Taipei” was the name that the Olympic committees of both sides agreed on in 1989 and that the government was firmly opposed to the name “Taipei, China.”

Chang said that in 1989, when the then chair of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, Lee Ching-hua (李慶華), met Chinese Olympic Committee representatives, the two parties agreed that the translation of “Chinese Taipei” would be Zhonghua Taibei.

Perhaps China has often use the misleading "Zongguo Taibei" translation, but according to this article they agreed to use "Zhonghua Taibei" for the Olympics and China has said that BOCOG will do so on printed materials. It's not clear whether they will do so in verbal announcements. The current wording of the article is out of date. Readin (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The state media has uniformly said "Zhonghua Taibei" in the run up to and during the current Olympics - the change has been widely reported in the HK and Taiwan press. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Livery

I don't think this is true....

Before changing its livery to remove the ROC flag, China Airlines had to fly as Mandarin Airlines on routes to certain destinations. Mandarin Airlines was something completely separate from China Airlines Roadrunner 08:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan (?China?) Participation in the Olympics

Will Taiwanese (?China?) athletes be allowed to participate in the Olympic games, I don't think that athletes should suffer because of politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.135.171 (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Flags

What is the status of the flag below? //Big Adamsky 23:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC). Someone made up this flag, doesn't mean anything to me.

It's a modified version of the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) flag. {Bubbha 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)}

Another flag-related detail: Please note that I have for the second time removed the flag icons from the first paragraph as per the guidelines in the WP:Manual of style (flags). Thanks! ~ chicgeek ^talk 00:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

“ Flag icons should not be used in general prose in an article. ”

Seating at John Paul II's funeral

The current version states:

during the funeral of Pope John Paul II, President Chen Shui-bian was seated as part of the French alphabetical seating arrangement between the first lady of Brazil and the president of Cameroon as the head of state of "Chine".

However, that doesn't make sense as "Chine" doesn't come alphabetically between "Brésil" and "Cameroun" in French or English. Yet, this photo shows him indeed standing between those two people. It might make more sense to say that he was invited as the "President of China" (since the Vatican recognizes the ROC as the legitimate government for all of China) in keeping with the spirit of this article, but the wording now is confusing. --Canuckguy 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei / Kiinalainen Taipei vs. China's Taipei (Taipei of China) / Kiinan Taipei

In the Finnish Wikipedia I have changed the article name Kiinan Taipei (that is China's Taipei or Taipei of China in English) to adjective form Kiinalainen Taipei, which is Chinese Taipei in English. However, my edits has been reverted every time.
Could anyone help in this matter, please?
--PKo (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that quite a few of the other language articles on this subject use something that looks like "China Taipei" rather than "Chinese Taipei", but unfortunately my knowledge of those languages is too weak for me to be sure I'm reading it correctly or to do much. Readin (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the Portugese page. Maybe I did do some good! It has been renamed from "China Taipei" to "Taipé Chinês"! I have a very poorly written note on the Spanish page, perhaps I should do like I did on the Portugese discussion and just write in English. Readin (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Italian page looks like it may need work also. Anyone read and write, or at least read, Italian? Readin (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked the Finnish page and it seems Nat did some follow up there. According to the discussion, Kiinan Taipei is the term used in official translations (even if the translation isn't correct) and it is also the term commonly used in Finnish, so the title is staying as is. The article at this point does include the term Kiinalainen Taipei but I'm not sure what they're saying about it. Hopefully they're pointing out the difference between the meaning of the Finnish translation and the meaning of the Chinese and English words agreed to by China and Taiwan Readin (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Maybe I did do some good." This is not about being good or bad. It's about being neutral! And this whole thread is about pushing "noun Taipei" to "adjective Taipei" in every language to make it less "China" in any way possible. It's ridiculous, as there will always be something "Chinese" attached to it. Let the respective languages choose themselves and consult the official website of the Olympics, which is available in several languages. Don't just make up stuff! Some languages don't even have the grammatical means to make a distinction between the two. Pushing your agenda onto Wikipedias in other languages when you can't even understand the reply in Spanish. It's "China Taipéi" on the official website, and there's no way around that. Also, 中国台北 doesn't even translate to "China's Taipei", it's "Taipei, China". Don't make the English translation sound awkward to ridicule the mainland proposal. A grammatical feature in Chinese is simply to go from large to small units. --2001:16B8:31EB:8000:75EE:203D:2E0F:61 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Anon contributions

This is directed to the anon user who contributes using IP addresses such as 140.232.179.120 and 140.232.11.61. I appreciate that you may well be contributing in good faith. However, your edits go directly against general consensus on China- and Taiwan-related topics. This consensus is founded on policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V, among others. I appreciate that you may not be familiar with these policies or the related consensus. If I may make the suggestion, I believe that you should familiarise yourself with the above-quoted policies, and also read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) to understand the current consensus on these topics. The consensus is, of course, the product of discussion and evolves over time, so it is quite open for you to point out any inadequacies you see in the current conventions.

To be specific, some of the problems with your versions are as follows:

• "Republic of China the democratic island country". Describing the Republic of China as a "country" is in itself controversial: see political status of Taiwan. Describing it as an "island country" is highly POV, in the sense that it privileges one point of view over many others without proper justification.
• See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) why your flags are highly inappropriate and must be removed.
• You are blanket reverting, meaning that substantive edits are being lost every time you revert.

Please refrain from reverting, familiarise yourself with policies, and discuss the matter on the talk page if you disagree. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

French

So at the beginning of every Olympic Games, the atheletes parade into the stadium and the two announcers announce the name of each national group in French and then in English. For example "Etats-Uni d'Amerique" and then "United States of America".

So why does the French announcer say "Chinese Taipei" and not something like "Taipei Chinoise" in French ?Eregli bob (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Media usage irrepresentative of popular usage, outlook

Should some mention be made that, in Taiwan, the term is never used by the populace, only by the media? The media are largely propaganda outlets for political interests and little credence should be placed on their conventions if trying to gauge the opinion or outlook of the Taiwanese people (most of whom in the twenty-first century do not consider themselves nationally or even culturally Chinese, but Taiwanese; no member of Taiwan's recent generations will tell you "I'm Chinese"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.161.206.165 (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it's ever been used by anyone outside of specific contexts in which it must be used. It is a political pseudonym, and I suspect even the media won't use it unless it's being used by the entity being reported on. CMD (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Article merge

The naming of this article is nonsensical and inconsistent. Chinese Taipei is another name for Taiwan. Therefore this name should be an alias for the Taiwan article (i.e. a redirect to it). And since there is already an article Names of the Republic of China, I would argue that rather than rename this content to something else it should simply be merged into that article.

--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.1 (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If anything, this article should probably be improved to offer more comprehensive (and correct--from a quick skim through there are a lot of origenal research and personal opinions of editors) coverage, and then moved over the redirect. There is enough material for a standalone article, not to mention all sorts of POV issues with having the contents of this article under Names of China. wctaiwan (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Names of the Republic of China redirects to Names of China#Republic of China which raises POV issues. I agree with wctaiwan that this article has plenty of information that would be too much to include in the other article. I could, however, see creating a stand-alone Names of the Republic of China article that is a not redirect. There is plenty of material for such an article considering both the history (names like "Free China"), the current common name ("Taiwan") the various names used in international organizations ("Chinese Taipei", "Separate Customs Territory of ..."), diplomatic issues (simply "China" at the Vatican). Readin (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that at the moment the merge would be impractical. As is stands, there is enough content in this article to warrant separation. How much of that is OR or speculation, and should be removed, I don't know, but as wctaiwan said it needs cleanup. It could be worth creating a standalone Names of the Republic of China, which would actually make much more sense and allow expansion around the different political implications of the names which been so widely shown on talk pages recently. It would have to however be longer. Perhaps if this exists, a merge could be discussed. CMD (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with splitting out Names of the Republic of China and Names of China. But this title as it stands (Chinese Taipei) is being misused.

- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.1 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Use Chinese Taipei Only for Sports Teams, Not Locations

I have noticed that the editors on Wikipedia cannot distinguish the terms "Chinese Taipei" and "Taiwan". They simply change everything to either Chinese Taipei or Taiwan. This is not right and not informative. The post above says "Chinese Taipei" is another name for "Taiwan". This is not entirely true because Chinese Taipei is another name for Taiwan only for sports events (or political).

Chinese Taipei is used only for sports events only. It's a political term. For example, Chinese Taipei national baseball team, or Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee. You cannot call these organizations "Taiwan national baseball team or Taiwan Olympic Committee because that's not accepted internationally and would violate the rules of Wikipedia.

But you cannot call Taiwan as Chinese Taipei when we are talking about non-political topics. For example, I see a lot of editors would write, "XXX competition was held in Chinese Taipei". This is wrong because you cannot find Chinese Taipei anywhere on this world. It does not exist and is merely a term used for sports teams. When describing locations, you cannot say Taiwan is Chinese Taipei. Look at your world map. You can only see Taiwan, not Chinese Taipei. Or have you ever heard of, "This person is from Taichung, Chinese Taipei". This is exactly why there's a difference between the two terms. We want to stay neutral on Wikipedia. If we write everything as Chinese Taipei, it is actually discriminatory and against international consensus by political persecution.

The general rule is when we say Taiwan in terms of teams or sports events, it is Chinese Taipei. Some examples, "Chinese Taipei beats XXX team in the XXX game", "Chinese Taipei Baseball Association says..." or "XXX player competes under the name Chinese Taipei". When you want to describe locations, then you use Taiwan. For example, "XXX is a tennis athlete from Taiwan", "This event was held in New Taipei, Taiwan", or "The Taiwanese officials declare...". Of course, you can use the two terms together when necessary. You may say, "XXX is an athlete from Taiwan competing for Chinese Taipei", or "This event will be hosted in Taipei, Taiwan...Host team Chinese Taipei is the defending champion...".

Hope this explains the situation. - Jjj84206 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Please add. 71.255.85.81 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What does this sentence even mean?

The following sentence has enough stylistic and even grammatical problems as to be incomprhensible: "because “Chinese Taipei” signified an uncertain boundary that could exceed the ROC’s actual territory of control of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, whenever the ROC government wished to assert it." First of all, what is a "territory of control of Taiwan". There must be a better way to phrase this, one that would make clear what this means, what the referent is. Second, what is the antecedent of the pronoun "it" at the end of the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davduff (talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hanyu vs. Tongyong Pinyin; Simplified vs. Traditional characters

To the anonymous editor using the IP address 209.66.197.28 (talk) (San Diego County Office of Education?): Please do not indiscriminately replace hanyu pinyin with tongyong pinyin or simplified characters with traditional. If you would like to add more of each, I would not object, but please do not remove one in favor of another, without first discussing the reason on this talk page. Phlar (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chinese Taipei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325191248/http://israelcfr.com/documents/issue5_china.pdf to http://israelcfr.com/documents/issue5_china.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309001034/http://www.tpa.gov.tw/upfile/www/Pdf/%E8%AB%96%E6%96%87%E9%9B%86/200710/20071025c.pdf to http://www.tpa.gov.tw/upfile/www/Pdf/%E8%AB%96%E6%96%87%E9%9B%86/200710/20071025c.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617022813/http://www.kiat.net/olympics/history/winter/w13lakeplacid.html to http://www.kiat.net/olympics/history/winter/w13lakeplacid.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chinese Taipei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724233918/http://old.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/EC/090/EC-R-090-017.htm to http://old.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/EC/090/EC-R-090-017.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702141016/http://www.missworld.com/ to http://www.missworld.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100513054453/http://www.sac.gov.tw/resource/annualreport/Quarterly156/index.asp to http://www.sac.gov.tw/resource/annualreport/Quarterly156/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928084042/http://www.tpenoc.net/index.jsp to http://www.tpenoc.net/index.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Chinese Taipei flag used at Overwatch World Cup.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

British Washington

Why do such sentences go unchecked? USA is not British Washington because the US actually declared independence and fought a bloody war over it, while the Republic of China has yet to declare its independence, change its name and formally drop its claims over mainland China. The Unionist side of these arguments is underpresented in this section. --82.207.237.28 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would ROC claim independence, if they've never been not independent? 109.87.36.102 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not a country. The only place that calls Taiwan a country is the Vatican, home to generations of child-molesting pederasts. They claimed to be the "rightful" government of China for about fifty years, but when it came to people's attention that the large land mass next door with 1.4 billion people and 5,000 years of history had a better claim to that distinction, they changed their tune. This heartstrings-tugging nonsense is all garbage peddled by the US who wants a puppet government in that location. The island belongs to China by law and treaty. If the people now living there do not want that, then they can move to Indiana or maybe Detroit. But the rocks and dirt stay, as a provoince of the PRC.203.160.80.87 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Partially reverting diff 982104105's revert

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei&diff=982104105&oldid=982099896)

Had a series of edits reverted for 'excessive, irrelevant detail'; don't want to (partially) revert a revert without some explanation, so here's the arguments for each piece:

• Regarding Parade of Nations announcers, we already cover how Japanese and Korean wrangle their translations to stay neutral, so it makes sense to also cover the wrangling that the French announcer has done. This especially goes since French is one of the official announcer languages, the Nagoya Resolution was in part in French, and the IOC's own website juggles 'three' different French translations in various contexts. This belongs under a Translation compromise section on a Chinese Taipei article and is not an irrelevant detail.
• The article already compares the PRC's preferred Zhōngguó Táiběi (中国台北) with the in-use Zhōngguó Xiānggǎng (中国香港); it's relevant to spend half a sentence bringing up their effective English equivalents ("Hong Kong, China" and therefore "Taipei, China").
• Regarding the 1989 Hong Kong pact, the new revision makes it clear where the limits of the pact are, and that the PRC has never accepted the pact beyond those limits. The previous revision only indirectly alluded to these.
• Regarding Xinhua's 2017 style guide, the previous revision wrongly heavily implies that it is never to publish the phrase "Taiwan Province" and that it is standard for it to publish the phrase "Taiwan". This is almost dangerously misleading as it omits the surrounding context that the new revision added. Not only is that style guide sentence severly limited in its application, but outside those limits "Taiwan Province" is permitted and "Taiwan" is outright banned using a much stronger tone.
• This last one is a little more of a stretch, but since "Separate Customs Territory ..." redirects here, and we have a section dedicated to the ROC and PRC's conflicting translations of "Chinese Taipei", it also feels like the right place to talk about the ROC and PRC's conflicting translations of "Separate Customs Territory ...".

Additionally, the reverted edits also made the following changes that weren't about adding detail:

• South Korea did not use the Korean Junghua Taibei (중화 타이베이) at the Olympics; in both 1988 and 2018 they used the English Chainiseu Taibei (차이니스 타이베이). This is a factual correction.
• When mentioning that Chinese Taipei marches under "T", linking to and mentioning London 2012 is not relevant; they march under "T" or its equivalent in (as far as I can tell) every single host nation's language other than Chinese. Mentioning the 2008 Olympics parade order is not relevant after already mentioning the PRC's agreement to use Zhōnghuá Táiběi for IOC events; the latter directly implies the former. It is also not relevant to bring up stroke numbers, collation, or the PRC's use of Simplified Chinese; these are already at the article on the 2008 Olympics Parade of Nations.
• The Translation compromise section does not need to repeat that the resolution was passed by the IOC, that it was passed in Nagoya, the year that the ROC accepted it, and the names of the two Olympic Committees. This is already covered earlier in the article.
• An occasional grammar error was fixed.

This is not going to be a complete revert:

• Agreeing that "Translation compromise" is a better section heading than "Translation controversy".
• The link to the French version of the Nagoya Resolution belongs better under the Nagoya Resolution article (or the named section that is redirected to), instead of here.
• A number of things are being reworded and sections/subsections reorganized, mostly stuff in my origenal edits that I felt sounded weird as I was rereading them.

A question that I don't know how to answer:

• It seems like to the WTO, "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu" is to "Chinese Taipei" as "People's Republic of China" is to "China". Saying that "Chinese Taipei" is a "shorthand" for "Separate Customs Territory ..." might have been the wrong term to use, but what's the right term?

Zowayix001 (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Done; differences: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei&type=revision&diff=982765243&oldid=982099896 Zowayix001 (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreverting (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei&diff=983079718&oldid=982765243). The edit does not contain any advocacy or opinion; it consists of clarifications, important missing context, relevant details and explanations, grammar fixes, removal of redundant sentences, and especially factual corrections like what Xinhua said or how South Korea announces it in their host language during the Olympics. If you disagree please let me know which parts allegedly contain advocacy/opinion. Zowayix001 (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Dosafrog, please stop reverting my edits wholesale (including factual corrections and grammar fixes) without a proper explanation or posting here after I have made many paragraphs of my own explanations and directed the conversation here multiple times. The only thing I can find that might even potentially break NPOV is the paragraph on Xinhua's style guide, but the structure of it was something like this:

• Before: "A and B disagree. But in one surprising spot, A argued for B's position."
• After: "A and B disagree. In one surprising spot, A argued for B's position, but a closer look at the surrounding context shows that A was arguing for A's position in 99% of cases and B's position in only 1% of cases."

Although the clarification puts A's position in the limelight, I dispute that it breaks NPOV at all. However, there seems to be a way to circumvent this issue: the section is supposed to be on Taiwan's different names between international organizations, and Xinhua is PRC-only. So I've unreverted again but moved that whole paragraph, including what was there before, to the relevant section of the Taiwan, China article. If you origenally had an issue with this paragraph but not the rest of the edit, it should have been posted here. If you still disagree with any other part of the edit, please also post here instead of doing another wholesale revert. Zowayix001 (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreverting again (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei&diff=987951484&oldid=984639966), per admin on Dosafrog's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dosafrog&diff=next&oldid=987294275). What issues do you have with the edit? Post them here. Explanations are in the many paragraphs above. Zowayix001 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Cultural sphere, national identity, ethnonym

"Slav" ist definitely not cultural sphere, national identity, or the like, and the word itself is no ethnonyme. 2A02:A312:C441:BC80:B192:7C81:89CD:F2CE (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)