text:
Talk:Politics of Taiwan

Title
Should the title of this article be rename as Politics of the Republic of China (as well as the template)? — Instantnood 19:36, Feb 14 2005 (UTC)

Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): " the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate. ". — Instantnood 19:35, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

 * The term "Republic of China" is little understood and confusing to most people worldwide. The first principle of writing good articles is to not confuse the reader. We should therefore use the only generally understood term, which is "Taiwan", jguk 19:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That all depends on the political views of the reader. Technically, "Republic of China" is more accurate because the People's Republic of China require this terminology. However, most countries' with diplomatic relations with Taiwan refer to this nation as Taiwan. The same goes for a majority of Taiwanese citizens.

If all others refer to Taiwan as Taiwan, then just use Taiwan because it's even more accuate for most countries. Of course, if you are a mainlander that live on Taiwan, I wouldn't be a bit of surprised that keeping ROC is more important than an ideal such as democracy.

Iron_Jackal_Tw

Page move
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved:

Politics of Taiwan → Politics of the Republic of China
Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): " the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate. ". — Instantnood 19:49, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

The same applies to List of political parties in Taiwan → List of political parties in the Republic of China and Elections in Taiwan → Elections in the Republic of China. — Instantnood 19:51, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)

See also the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Politics of Taiwan. — Instantnood 10:54, Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
 * By nominating I support moving the articles. — Instantnood 19:49, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Taiwan is far better known as the name, and the Taiwanese government and people prefer it. - XED . talk 20:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * half the Taiwanese population, probably those who voted for the current president, prefer it. see comment below.--Jiang 21:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * when half the Taiwnese population knows it as Taiwan, and the rest of the world knows it as Taiwan, then its pretty clear it should be called Taiwan. Even recent passports issued by the Taiwanese government are starting to emphasize the name "Taiwan". - XED . talk  21:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the POV of the current governing party DPP and the president. In fact there was a debate over printing the word "Taiwan" on passports. — Instantnood 07:55, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
 * Please take note: The debates exist. The general public supports the move.Mababa 01:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes the debates exist. And the general public prefer keeping the current situation (neither reunification nor going independent). But that's not relevant, as its the Wikipedia's principle to be NPOV. — Instantnood 18:02, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Taiwan is a much better known name, G-Man 20:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But it is not accurate. — Instantnood 07:56, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
 * Its not accurate because the politics of Taiwan extend far earlier than the existence of the Republic of Chin, the move was wrong. --68.161.174.39 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE. I recall that this and other Taiwan → Republic of China requests have been made on several previous occasions. And is should be noted that the naming convention you have chosen to cite has been edited back and forth over this issue without resolution or consensus for the past several weeks.  Without any such resolution, it is impossible to apply this "convention" much less state that such an unstable tete-a-tete is in fact a "convention."  However, these facts substantiate why I oppose this move: First–by renaming these items "Republic of China" you potentially can confuse people who may think they are reading an article about the "People's Republic of China."  Second–Taiwan receives 44,700,000 hits on google, while "Republic of China" receives 3,880,000  (however, in light of the confusion mentioned above, I have also searched under "Republic of China" -People's which reduces the total to 1,350,000  and likewise to avoid confusion with Mainland China's "Province of Taiwan" I have searched "Taiwan -'Province of'" which reduced the Taiwan total to 27,100,000 )  While I don't advocate google test results without analysis, a 20:1 ratio after the search is qualified is sufficient in my opinion to judge "Taiwan" as the more common choice.  Third–The general convention on Wikipedia has been to label articles using the conventional short form of a country's name, hence Politics of Mexico and not Politics of the United Mexican States, &c.  Fourth–The CIA World Factbook has only a listing for "Taiwan" and none for "Republic of China", and further states on the Taiwan article  that there is no conventional long form of the county's name (which if there were would be "Republic of China" but according to the CIA, that doesn't exist as a CLF most likely because the U.S. doesn't formally recognize the government in Taipei.).  The U.S. State Department refers to "Taiwan" in an article on the People's Republic of China (the mainland), but does not refer to any entity known as the "Republic of China"  also stating under Note 3 on a list of Independent States of the World With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979, the US Government recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.  Fifth, the article for Taiwan's/ROC's communist counterpart is China and their politics article as Politics of China, which is in keeping with the third premise I stated above.  Sixth, Politics of the Republic of China is a cumbersomely long title for the article when concise brevity is generally the norm.  The only counter position is that Taiwan only refers to one of the several islands under the control of the Republic of China, however, because the more common usage is to umbrella the ROC's islands as "Taiwan" in the same manner that the Hawaiian Islands are collectively called "Hawaii" in addition the fact that most of the English-speaking West refers to "Taiwan" popularly rather than the cumbersome "Republic of China," this counter position is moot. —ExplorerCDT 20:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The country template exists at Republic of China, not Taiwan. The article for communist China is at People's Republic of China, not China. On technical grounds, calling the Republic of China "Taiwan" is as much accurate as calling the United Kingdom "Great Britain". There's the island of Taiwan, which excludes the Pescadores and Quemoy/Matsu and there's the ROC's Taiwan Province, which excludes Taipei, Kaohsiung, Quemoy, and Matsu, and the PRC's Taiwan Province, which excludes Quemoy and Matsu. Neither of these definitions, either political or geographical, are completely synonymous with the Republic of China. In the case of the Hawaiian Islands, there's the political entity, the state of Hawaii. When President Chen made statements last year and the year before saying "Taiwan is the Republic of China and the Republic of China is Taiwan" there was widespread opposition by not only unification-leaning groups in Taiwan, but the People's Republic of China (as evidenced by Xinhua news reports protesting the statements) and the United States (seeming to suggest moves away from the status quo). Therefore, saying they are the same is not neutral. The US position is not neutral either: in recognizing the PRC, it "acknowledged" the PRC's position that the Republic of China is a defunct entity having been replaced by the PRC. Of course they can't call it the "Republic of China"... Please note that Foreign relations of Taiwan has been moved to Foreign relations of the Republic of China in the not so distant past. I won't take a stand on whether the politics article should be moved, since this is no big deal, but I would like to see some consistency. Either move this to ROC or move that one back to Taiwan. Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China should be dealt with similarly. --Jiang 21:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems we have several articles...China, Mainland China and People's Republic of China. I believe, due to the reasons I stated above, that the consistent position should be naming the articles "Taiwan." —ExplorerCDT 21:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * However, among those, the template resides at People's Republic of China. The naming conventions have been well-enforced within articles for the most part. Try searching for references of "President of Taiwan" or "Flag of Taiwan" (you wont see these linked to in this manner). These pages are only such because the rules are being ignored--they existed before the templates were moved. If I wanted to play by the rules, I would support moving--Jiang
 * It is also a matter of consistence. — Instantnood 07:57, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
 * (To ExplorerCDT) Nearly all webpages about "Republic of China" would mention the word "Taiwan", and "Taiwan Province" is not only a claimed province by the PRC, but also a streamlined province of the ROC (Taiwan Provincial Government website). By searching with "Taiwan" -"Province" it eliminate webpages about the Taiwan Province of the ROC. The US Department of State is POV, as the United States does not regard Taiwan or Republic of China as a sovereign state. And that's the prerequisite for any country to establish diplomatic relations with the PRC. The ROC is however listed as a special territory under the title "Taiwan" without dealing with the official title "Republic of China", probably to avoid any trouble from Beijing. "Taiwan" is not accurate. Matsu Islands and Quemoy are neither part of the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan, although they are territories under ROC's control.The sentence from the conventions that I have quoted has been there without modification for months. (despite edits to the page over the past few months) — Instantnood 08:04, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: By googling "Taiwan" "Province" limit to .tw, only 41,400 came out. Even the ROC did not provide much information on that province. The name "Taiwan" is still more representitive for that government than the official name "ROC" which has been for gotten by the rest of the world.Mababa 07:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has to be accurate, NPOV and encyclopedic. Taiwan is simply not an accurate and NPOV designation. — Instantnood 18:05, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a policy to use common names. --Improv 21:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And unlike the naming conventions that Instanood cited, "use common names" isn't changed every other week. —ExplorerCDT 21:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The naming conventions for China-related articles, spelling out the current setup, has been in place for over a year. The template has existed at Republic of China for nearly two years. What is being changed every other week? I certainly dont see anything.--Jiang 04:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (to ExplorerCDT) the conventions from which I quoted has been modified several times over the past few months, but the sentence I have quoted has been there for many months. — Instantnood 18:07, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * Please also refer to Don't overdo it. :-) — Instantnood 08:05, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No-one outside America would understand the new name, which is totally misleading to non-Americans. Use the name everyone understands, "Taiwan", jguk 21:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think wikipedians who made up the conventions and placed the article at Republic of China are all from the states. — Instantnood 08:07, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. The politics in question are those of the political entity called the Republic of China, which is not Taiwan. A.D.H. (t&m) 21:32, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would prefer that any Taiwan/ROC article uses simply "Taiwan" ObsidianOrder 21:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That involves modifying the conventions. Currently the article about the government is at Republic of China but not Taiwan. — Instantnood 08:05, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Neutralitytalk 22:18, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, tentatively. While article related to geographical features should use Taiwan, this is an article specifically about politics.  The state refers to itself as the "Republic of China", whether or not the ruling party is looking to change that. We do similar things with, say Republic of Ireland, which is obviously less commonly used than just "Ireland." john k 03:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support with condition Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): " Wikipedia reflects the neutral reality and considers the term "China" not to coincide with any particular sovereign state or government. ". This is a written Wikipedia NPOV policy stipulating the term "China" can not be used as any political entity. However, there are so many articles with titles of "XYZ of China" which are mostly dedicated to the political entity called PRC; and quite often, ROC/Taiwan is being included into part of these articles simply because Taiwan is currently ruled by a government bears a name with "China" in its official name. The result of these China/PRC articles is creating an impression that Wikipedia agrees with PRC's POV and regards Taiwan/ROC as part of China. Otherwise why should ROC be listed under a political entity called China? I would support current proposal, if what the naming convention stipulated gets enforced and upheld: making all the "XYZ of China" (which actually equates China to PRC) changed back to the name PRC and stops making China as a political entity. Otherwise, why is that the articles about the PRC are so privileged that they do not have to follow the convention and enjoyed the title of China and also have the advantage to include ROC into it, while the ROC articles are bounded by the convention and can not be called as Taiwan like the world outside of Wikipeida calls her? Specifically the Political divisions of China, and the Province of China. Perhaps it is time for us to change the policy so that PRC gets the name China and ROC gets the name Taiwan as political entities. One more comment, even in side the U.S., I bet quite some people can only recognize Taiwan and knows nothing about ROC.Mababa 04:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose In some of my research for wikipedia contributions, I've had to search, and have found Taiwan to be a far more useful key word, and because of that and the context in the articles, I have had to explicity reference Taiwan, even though I was wiki linking to the republic article. It must have been some strained politics that resulted in the wikipedia policy that is being cited.--Silverback 14:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Taiwan has never been a real official title for the government controlling the island of Taiwan, Pescadores Islands, Matsu Islands and Quemoy (plus the Pratas and some islands of the Spratlys). — Instantnood 18:12, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * You're confusing two things: you're talking about making it easy for readers and editors to find and/or link to articles. That can be accomplished with redirects and disambiguation pages. But that's not what's at stake here. The question underlying the requested move is what would be the most accurate title for the article. While there can be many redirects, as far as the main title of an article is concerned, there can be only one. As explained many times before, "Taiwan" is inaccurate and POV in this context, so it should be replaced with a more accurate and NPOV term and appropriate redirects created. --MarkSweep 11:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The Naming conventions (Chinese) section is badly flawed and contains a number of POV statements: * "Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China"  * "Taiwan... should be only described as part of the Republic of China" Anyone can agree or disagree with the above points of view.  But they are just that, points of view (POV), which have been the subject of sharp debate over decades. Presence of POV statements in a section about NPOV is frankly silly, and it's deceptive to phrase this as some kind of Wikipedia official policy ("Wikipedia treats..."). This section Naming conventions (Chinese) is not some official Wikipedia policy listed under Category:Wikipedia official policy or Category:Wikipedia semi-policy; it's just another page that anyone can edit (and someone should). PS, I am not voting on this particular ROC/Taiwan issue, but I do have an interest in the PRC/China issue (see other requested move above). -- Curps 04:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the rules, then please post on the relevant talk page to gain consensus to change them. Otherwise, the rules stand and cannot be simply ignored. These rules have been in place for over a year, nearly two years. Please check the page history of that page. Any additions are quickly reverted, like yours, without proper consensus. It just hasnt been tagged because it's existed for so long before categories even existed. this doesnt mean it isnt policy.--Jiang 04:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's very odd that you staunchly defend Naming conventions (Chinese), yet you yourself ignore it completely by making the unilateral move "X in Republic of China" → "X in Taiwan" that Instantnood wishes to undo. He quotes the wording: the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate.  You yourself obviously believe this wording no longer applies, yet you didn't bother to post on the talk page.  If your position is that "Political NPOV" section can just be ignored, you have no standing to object if others take the same position in the future. -- Curps 06:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In that particular case, as I have answered to Instantnood, using "Republic of China" did not make it any more accurate or NPOV. All metro areas listed were on the island of Taiwan. The topic was non-political and geographical/demographic in nature. Thereofre, Taiwan should be used. I dont believe I ignored the naming conventions there. --Jiang
 * The definition that that article based upon is a definition by the ROC government, which is applied and applicable to all territories under its control. It is possible for some related or similar definitions by the ROC to be fit with places on territories outside the island or the province of Taiwan. — Instantnood 18:16, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever happens to Politics of Taiwan is discussible or debatable. All these politics take place on Taiwan. If we want to add more historical review, we can always add the poltics of Taiwan during Japanese rule or even back to Qing or Dutch rule. It is really debatable if whether the move is necessary. I guess your proposal on redefining "China" is more foundamental; and your previous edits on the convention reverted by me are really POV moves that worth some discussion so that everyone can have a opinion to modify and finally reach a neutral point everyone's happy about. The key is: Talk is cheap; talk is free!! :)Mababa 06:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not likely. Elections are also held on Matsu Islands and Quemoy. They are not part of the island or the province of Taiwan. Political events on Taiwan during Dutch, Qing and Japanese rule are covered by other articles. — Instantnood 08:27, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Those covered article can be merged or partly introduced in this article. I do not see a reason to make that move unlikely. With your support on enforcing the NPOV convention, I would assume you would also support stoping the usage of having the term "China" as a political entity.Mababa 21:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Generally yes. — Instantnood 18:19, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * (To Curps) The two sentences you have quoted is not POV. "Republic of China" is the current official title of the government currently governing Taiwan, Pescadores Islands, Matsu Islands and Quemoy (and many other islands, such as Taiping Island in the South China Sea). — Instantnood 08:27, Feb 17 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I could agree with Elections or Politics in Taiwan (Republic of China). Gangulf 20:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What about "Elections of.." or "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)"? :-) — Instantnood 18:19, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * Support It is not the business of Wikipedia to declare Tawian's independence on their behalf. 172 20:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not see any implication of declaring Taiwan's independence here. PRC's claim over that administration on Taiwan is not further damaged or bolstered by all means. You might want to further explain how you interpret the political implication here.Mababa 21:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support there is no such country as Taiwan. Republic of China is the correct name. Grue 07:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment the Republic of China is a highly misleading title as it implies that it covers the whole of China, which it clearly doesn't, it covers a few islands of which Tiawan is the largest. The Tiawanese government may like to pretend that it is the legitimate government of China, but in the real world it clearly isn't. G-Man 19:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The official name of China from 1911 to 1949 is Republic of China (ROC). Following the Chinese Civil War, ROC government retreated to Taiwan, and maintained a stable existence by effectively controlling the island of Taiwan, Pescadores Islands, Matsu Islands and Quemoy. The latter two are on the coast of the continent. The ROC also controls the Pratas Islands, and some islands of the Spratlys. The Communist Party seized control of mainland China following ROC's retreat, and established the People's Republic of China. The ROC has not formally renounced its claim on mainland China (and Tuva and Mongolia) until today. The territories that are currently under ROC's control covers not only the island of Taiwan nor the province of Taiwan. And in fact pro-independence politicians who also advocate changing the official title of the country to "Taiwan" (or "Republic of Taiwan") do not consider Matsu Islands and Quemoy as Taiwan's territory. — Instantnood 19:55, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
 * The claim to all of China was unofficially dropped in 1991...--Jiang
 * The name "Republic of China" is both official and accurate. Even after 1949 it was meant to cover all of China, since the ROC constitution was never amended. This is contradicted by reality and you may think it is misleading, but then again you could bring a charge of being misleading against any "Democratic People's Republic" or the "Holy Roman Empire". That doesn't make those names any less appropriate as article titles. --MarkSweep 12:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, to be consistent with the rest of WP this article should be moved over the redirect from politics of the Republic of China. We have plenty of articles about countries, and almost invariably they take the form "COUNTRY NAME" for the overview article and then "Politics of COUNTRY NAME", "History of COUNTRY NAME", etc. for the specialized articles. The situation is clearly more complex here, but for the sake of uniformity this should be "Politics of the Republic of China". As an aside, note that we have both history of the Republic of China and history of Taiwan, which are clearly distinct as they focus on different aspects. Another comment: Common names are sometimes wrong or misleading, e.g. "England" is used sloppily to refer to all of the United Kingdom, "Holland" to the Netherlands, etc. Likewise "Taiwan" is arguably imprecise, referring to a geographic entity and (at least informally and/or for some people) to a political entity, namely the ROC. There is no doubt that the political entity is meant here, so the narrower, more precise term should be used because it is unambiguous. It is only in certain historical contexts that it makes sense to talk about "Taiwan" in connection with politics, e.g. Political divisions of Taiwan (1895-1945) is clearly appopriate. --MarkSweep 00:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. For an encyclopedia to name its articles according to possible readers' ignorance rather than according to what's accurate is an appalling notion. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. As ADH says, the politics here is the politics of the political entity known as the Republic of China. Here's what I think should be the rule of thumb (a very, very simplified version of a rule of thumb; there are going to be complex exceptions): if the article is about geography, use Taiwan. If the article is about culture, use China. If the article is about politics, use Republic of China. —Lowellian (talk) 09:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise
I had some discussion with Instantnood and I suggested the compromise to name these kind of pages ..of Republic of China - Taiwan. I think this might be less POV Gangulf 22:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Gangulf agreed with "..of Republic of China (Taiwan)" but she/he prefers "..of Republic of China - Taiwan". — Instantnood 22:21 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

 * Are you saying that the compromise is to name or rename ROC-related pages currently named "Republic of China" to a new name substituting or incorporating "Taiwan?" Or using both simultaneously? or are you just patting yourself on the back and saying you had some discussion and made a suggestion? There is no entity known as the "Republic of China" it died in 1949, and the U.S. and other countries do not officially recognize a "Republic of China" but they officially recognize a successor state known as the "People's Republic of China." The West, in popular parlance, knows it simply and unconfusingly as Taiwan.  You say ROC to the average Westerner and they'll immediately think Beijing.  If that's the compromise, I continue my objections for the reasons enumerated hitherto. —ExplorerCDT 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Just being curious, would vote backed with false evidence be counted? — Instantnood 23:15 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
 * Rhetorical appeals by deception don't work...here or elsewhere where you have tried to implement it. You claim false evidence, prove it.  Otherwise, you're a mini-Goebbels repeating lies hoping that after a few times people will think them true. —ExplorerCDT 07:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If I were repeating lies, probably I weren't the only one.  — Instantnood 11:35 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
 * You're alone on that one, mini-Goebbels. I make a habit of backing up my claims and rationale sufficiently...something evident if you read through my comments in opposition. —ExplorerCDT 16:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, No personal attacks. Comparing someone to Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels (twice!) is provocative and repugnant, and helps to discount any points that you might be trying to make. Blank Verse  ∅  06:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * trolling? the US did not recognize the PRC until 1979. It recognized the ROC until December 1978. The ROC represented China in the UN until it was replaced by the PRC in 1971. Neither usage is NPOV. Taiwan is not NPOV. We have no choice but to use the "whatever name the party exercises sovereignty over uses" rule. This is done at Republic of Macedonia, Diaoyu Islands, etc. Perhaps using both is a compromise--Jiang 03:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Trolling, no. Statistics show Taiwan is the most used in the general sense, and google shows a 20:1 margin for Taiwan over ROC. But if you don't want to step on anyone's toes we might as well use all three, ROC, Taiwan, and Province of Taiwan, in order to keep Instantnood, the Red Chinese, and everyone else happy. Mao is probably rolling over in his grave wishing posthumously that he nuked that stupid island. —ExplorerCDT 07:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please stop it. I don't know if you're trolling, or if this is mere desparation; it's not important. But posting flame bait is just not cool. --MarkSweep 02:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd just add that while both "ROC" and "Taiwan" are POV, "Taiwan" is also actively wrong, in that neither side recognizes the entity referring to itself as the ROC to be coextensive with Taiwan. john k 06:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Never said anything about co-extensive, just stated long ago that a 20:1 margin on google of Taiwan vs. ROC and common usage should trump nationalistic sentiment and overcumbersome title construction. —ExplorerCDT 07:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There is most certainly "an entity known as the 'Republic of China'." Whether that is an appropriate name is, of course, up for grabs, but that is certainly what it calls itself.  And it is certainly referred to as that in the world at large, at least some of the time. john k 06:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It calls itself that, sure, but does the world recognize it? No. Run a search through any newspaper and you'll see Taiwan is the word of choice, tromping usage of ROC. —ExplorerCDT 07:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * so newspapers, save the Communist Chinese media, use "North Korea" and "South Korea" over "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and "Republic of Korea", respectively. Does that mean no one recognizes the latter usages? Perhaps the most important issue in cross-strait relations, especially within Taiwan, right now is the debate over the meanings of "Taiwan" and "Republic of China". There's no need for wikipedia to dumb things down. Newspapers have to keep it short, we dont --Jiang 07:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Much of the world may not recognise the government of the Republic of China as the sole representation of China, but that is entirely different from the recognition of the fact that the name Republic of China exists!--Huaiwei 08:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Right. Two dozens of countries maintain diplomatic relations with an entity called "Republic of China". Many of the rest keep de facto diplomatic relations with Taipei, although they have to avoid using "Republic of China" and angering Beijing.  — Instantnood 11:39 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)
 * I support the compromise of having both ROC and Taiwan being in the same title, and I am open to whether it takes the format of ROC (Taiwan) or ROC - Taiwan. The only issue is that it looks sadly "unprofessional" and quite unbecoming for an encyclopedia. Personally, I prefer XXX of Taiwan to be automatically redirected to XXX of ROC so long that the article is refering to the political entity of the ROC, and not merely the island of Taiwan.--Huaiwei 08:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Huaiwei. I can live with "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or something similar. In any case, this should not be a popularity contest. Here's another analogy: people say "ancient Rome" all the time to refer to either the Roman Empire or the Roman Republic or the city of Rome (which wasn't even the capital after things went south in the west). But that doesn't mean we have to be as imprecise here, just because most people don't care enough to get it right. --MarkSweep 02:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support compromise rename. Both "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" are ambiguous in this case. We need to keep in mind that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper or magazine, so it is the most accurate description, and not the most popular name, that should be used. Since the article is only about the politics of the modern-day Republic of China, the article should be "Politics of Republic of China - Taiwan" (with a redirect from "Politics of Taiwan"). Blank Verse  ∅  06:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Using hyphens or parentheses or whatever—no matter which case, this results is an extremely clumsy and inelegant construction for names. —Lowellian (talk) 09:35, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhapse it should be explained to everyone how the name "Republic of China (Taiwan)" can be used. Take Western Front and Western Front (WWII) which wikipedia expands to similar looking links Western Front and Western Front. This is because Wiki treats names which end in brackets in a special way. The links are to different pages although they look the same. Republic of China (Taiwan) will look like this Republic of China while Republic of China (Taiwan) ,without the "|" symbol, will appear on the page as Republic of China (Taiwan) Philip Baird Shearer 15:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Having "Taiwan" in brackets in titles is in fact a compromise to people who opposed "X of/in the Republic of China" because they thought it's confusing. "X of/in the Republic of China (Taiwan)" looks less confusing to most readers. It does not imply that there is another "Republic of China". "Taiwan" in brackets is not a disambiguation. In fact, Most of first paragraphs of these articles already tells the article they are reading is about a political entity called "the Republic of China" but it is based on "Taiwan". — Instantnood 09:32 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)

A time of crisis
What I see of the recent discussion over whether to use PRC, ROC, mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao is that it reveals a deadlock over an encyclopedia built up by ordinary internet users. It is not easy to preserve the professional style of editing which an encyclopedia needs, as Huaiwei has suggested. People who supported and opposed the move had different concerns, whether to preserve accuracy, or to make it easy to use for average readers. If there isn't any ressolution to the deadlock, the number of votes for each side could be meaningless. — Instantnood 11:47 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

 * I've said this elsewhere before: We need a better way to enforce editorial policy (to the extent that this is desirable at all). It is pointless to argue about whether the ROC even exists on this page; we can have these arguments, but the sole purpose of this page is to decide whether and how pages should be moved/renamed. In this case, the (re)naming is governed by the naming conventions for China-related articles. Objections to and discussion of those naming conventions are simply out of place here. The only relevant question is whether the requested moves would result in better compliance with the naming conventions. What I'm advocating here is a better separation between policy making (deciding what the naming conventions should be) and implementation of policies. We cannot re-open policy discussions when it's time to implement an existing policy. The whole point of a separate policy is to ensure consistency and to centralize the discussion. And the best way to achieve consistency is to implement the policy uniformly. This requires that users be able to separate what they think is the Right Way To Do Things from what the policy says. On this page, we're talking about policy implementation.  The only question we're trying to resolve is whether the original article name or the proposed new article name (or something else entirely) is more desirable according to the existing naming conventions. Personal opinions about the appropriateness of those naming conventions should play no role in the debate. --MarkSweep 02:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

No, there are no deadlock. I just see bunch of non-Taiwan people decide on how Taiwan should be called.

Iron_Jackal_Tw

Alternative solution
It's too bad that we can't simply transinclude the page on one of the pages to the other. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any way out? — Instantnood 17:41 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes. Instantnood - please take on board that the term ROC is not widely understood, Taiwan is. Let me be blunt: I'm not the only one fed up with your pre-occupation of trying to convert all the Taiwan articles that are named in a way that everyone understands to a form that few understand and many would find most confusing. I had not even heard the term "ROC" before coming onto Wikipedia. Please stop! jguk 20:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please bring the issue to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) if you disagree with the conventions. Thank you. — Instantnood 20:32 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

Poll
Was anyone here aware Instantnood is running another poll to move "XXX of Taiwan" to "XXX of the Republic of China" at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC? The poll "started" a week ago, but since no pages link to the polling page, I thought maybe it was a little onesided and needed some publicity... SchmuckyTheCat 21:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please kindly check Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC (except those added by SchmuckyTheCat just now), for what pages are linked to it. Thank you.
 * Please also note that the polls there are enforcement of the naming conventions. — Instantnood 21:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I first suggested to proceed to have a poll as a solution on March 10 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/archive4, and there was no objection. More than two weeks later on March 26 I suggested to have polls on a case-by-case basis (at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV). A link was added at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV to direct readers to the polling page on March 31, at the time when the polling page was created.

SchmuckyTheCat is wrong for accusing me for starting the polls with no page linked to it, that it might resulted in onesided and lack of publicity. Please note this is an accusation, though I am pretty sure opinion wouldn't be affected easily. — Instantnood 06:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

A delicate balance
I think Taiwan is a special case that doesn't fit neatly into the Politics of XXX scheme. We need at least two articles:

 * Politics of Taiwan
 * Republic of China

The part about the national assembly, constitution, and who the past and present presidents are, could just as easily go into the Republic of China. After all, Republic of China is the name of a goverment.

But there is more to Taiwanese politics than the internal goings-on of the ROC goverment and/or its foreign relations with friendly goverments (yes, there's a handful out there). Moreover, since the politics of Taiwan is dominated by the elephant in the corner I think we need a distinct article just to talk about that "elephant". That is, the cross-claims of PRC and ROC, with the PRC's claims getting the nod from the UN and so forth. And the de facto / de jure split.

Hey, but what do I know? I ain't Chinese, and I can barely even use chopsticks. ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * there are several articles that discuss the cross-straight issue in some depth. Political status of Taiwan, Legal status of Taiwan, Taiwan independence and Chinese reunification. With the current POV accusations going back and forth, plus occasional anon "contributions" I wouldn't use those articles as primary source material if you decided to get familiar with the issue. SchmuckyTheCat 14:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (to Uncle Ed's comment at 14:26, Apr 14) I compiled a list of useful articles during a previous discussion. — Instantnood 15:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Introduction
I removed the following first two paragraphs of the introduction and reverted back to the old introduction:

The politics of Taiwan is complex, since two opposing bodies each claim jurisdiction over it, and tensions remain high. The Peoples Republic of China (PRC} claims de jure sovereignty over Taiwan, but de facto controls only "mainland China". The PRC's view that Taiwan (or Formosa) is a "rebellious province" is accepted by most countries, but the U.S. and some other countries tacitly oppose this view. (For example, the "American embassy" on Taiwan is nominally a trade ministry.)

The PRC's claims to Taiwan and how other countries view Taiwan's status are best discussed in the article Political status of Taiwan. The politics of Taiwan article is supposed to talk about how the ROC is governed and the political parties that influence the government. While PRC's attempts to influence the politics of Taiwan is important, it is not important enough to be in the introduction. And information about the PRC's claims to Taiwan definitely should not be ahead of information about the territories that the ROC currently administers. Allentchang 05:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for a move?
This article was moved from Politics of Taiwan to Politics of the Republic of China. It looks controversial to me, and I don't see a consensus. Taiwan should be more neutral given that it could refer to Taiwan plus all other islands without saying one way or the other about independence, official title, etc. But could someone point me in the right direction? Where was the consensus that this should be done?--DownUnder555 02:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * i'd have to concur. to concede taiwan as the disputed 'republic of china' at the outset sends a biased taint throughout the remaining article. the original Politics of Taiwan conveyed greater neutrality by comparison, as it didn't instantly implicate the entire feud by way of name alone. the necessity for change was terribly unfounded. --Blackinferno 10:12pm, 18 November 2005

I concur as well. The politics of Taiwan also goes back for centuries before the Republic of China, for example the Qing Dynasty, the Portuguese, etc. This is a farce and implies that Taiwan's political history only involves the Republic of China and erases all other history. Politics of Taiwan =/= Politics of the Republic of China. --68.161.174.39 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I think it may also be useful to mention more about the foreign relations of the ROC SarahOll (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This article title has been in use since 2005, and it would take a strong consensus to move it back, regardless of how the previous move discussion was handled. There is no consensus here to move this article (although perhaps the lead and hatnotes could be a little more straightforward). (non-admin closure) Brad  v  15:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Politics of the Republic of China → Politics of Taiwan – The result of in 2005 was "no consensus" on using "Politics of the Republic of China". However, the title was changed to "Politics of the Republic of China" in the same year without another discussion. "Politics of Taiwan (Republic of China)" (20 January 2006) and "Politics of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" (17–20 June 2016) were short-lived titles, so title stability has not been affected. WP:TITLECHANGES is tricky when the current title has been used since 2005. However, stability can be interpreted differently. Also, the article has maintenance tags probably affected by the title change. If the result is "no consensus", shall the title default to the previous title per previous RM or the current title? George Ho (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

 * Rename per the main article which is at Taiwan. If necessary, reduce pre 1949 material. WP:TITLECHANGES doesn't really apply in cases like this where the overarching article name has been changed and it's natural for subordinate articles to follow. A lot of the Taiwan articles were never properly renamed after the main one was a few years back due to some persistent opposition but this mess needs tidying up. Timrollpickering 15:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This article is about the Republic of China, not Taiwan, and includes the history of the RoC prior to its moving to Taiwan. 'Reducing the pre-1949 material' would be whitewashing of history and a complete nonsense. There is a difference between Taiwan and the RoC. They are not one and the same. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The header of the article begins "This article is about the politics of Taiwan." And Republic of China redirects to Taiwan. It's tiresome that this issue gets fought out on so many different pages. Timrollpickering 18:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It reads like that because certain editors try to force the oversimplified "Taiwan" moniker on things that are not about Taiwan. I do not believe that should be there, and would remove it, but I have no desire to get into that sort of entrenched battle. As an example, when someone got the page Elections in the Republic of China moved to Elections in Taiwan, they made a lovely stupid change in the clean-up process, whereby they wrote 'The government of Taiwan, led by the Kuomintang, retreated to Taiwan in 1949 for losing the Chinese Civil War with the Communist Party of China'. These sorts of counterfactual nonsenses have their origins in this kind of battle that we've seen on Wikipedia, where people who do not understand the history of this dispute are using oversimplified news jargon to make their determinations on what is what, as opposed to actually ensuring that what they say makes any sense or has any connection to the historical reality. In any case, the only way to avoid this, is to ensure that we do not oversimplify the history of this situation. Yes, the entity currently based in Taiwan, official called the Republic of China, is commonly called Taiwan for the sake of simplicity, but that doesn't separate that entity from its historical reality, or from its legal identity. The goal of an encylopaedia is to spread information, not disinformation. Let's mind that goal, shall we? RGloucester  — ☎ 18:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose an island doesn't have politics. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Main article was moved to Taiwan (which makes the comment directly above meaningless) and all other articles should follow. Agree with Tim that the scope of the article could be amended (e.g. to cover the Japanese period) if it's really an issue. Number   5  7  09:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Much of this page would fit well under a Politics of Taiwan title, given it mostly focuses on the post-martial law era of politics which is what we are in today. However, that does not make up the whole article, and so I feel this can not be treated simply as a move request, but rather a question of structure. What is the best way to cover this uniquely complicated political situation? Whatever the title of this article, the article itself as it currently stands brings up that question. Politics on the mainland and politics under martial law were very different to modern politics, and their inclusion here both reduces what is said about them while distracting from coverage of current politics. Personally I would have one article devoted to current politics, with the politics and political structures of different eras in different articles. Looking through the GA/A quality "Politics of COUNTRY" articles, Politics of Somalia discusses political history only after the fall of the Siad Barre regime, Politics of Croatia actually includes a broader history then we have here, but as the final section, while Politics of Vietnam only discusses the current political structure and activity. A clearer focus of article topics will both improve the article and make assessing appropriate titles easier. CMD (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true, but what you haven't noted is that the politics of the present-day Republic of China are a direct descendant of the mainland regime's politics, in a way that does not apply to those other cases, and that there is no such inheritance from the Japanese colonial system. What I mean by this is that the constitution of the RoC, the Three Principles of the People, all of the institutions of the present RoC government, are developments that originally occurred on the mainland, and were only later transplanted to Taiwan. Removing the history of these institutions, as is proposed above, and replacing them with a section on Japanese rule, makes absolutely no sense in the historical context and will not further the reader's comprehension of how the politics of 'Taiwan' work. The continuity here, as described by the article, is one of the RoC, not of a 'Taiwan'. However, we still have people like the overly formulaic Number 57, above, who prefer a foolish consistency to any kind of sense. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that they're totally unmoored from previous politics, (The recent Croatian election was often covered in the news as infighting dating back to the Second World War,) but I take that point. I do note however that other cases with more continuous histories, off the top of my head Politics of the United States and Politics of France, have also eschewed a history section. Comparisons aside, I continue to stand on the merits of the argument, which is aiming to provide clarity and focus in the articles. On these merits, I would agree with you that replacing the ROC history with the Japanese administration sounds like a very poor idea indeed. I also would like to clarify that I am not suggesting removing all the elements that came from pre-1949, rather, I would like them to be included where they clearly demonstrate how they are relevant to the present, say under a Constitution section rather than a History section. I also aren't suggesting this simply be split pre- and post-1949, hence my mention of martial law. At any rate, Japan, institution, etc., are all issues that will need to be discussed regardless of title, and will unavoidably muddle this move request due to their being unresolved. CMD (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Weak oppose Even after 1949, Taiwan and ROC are different concepts. If Taiwan = ROC, which has always been a sovereign nation, how can there be Taiwan independence movement? Independence from who? (Notice there's no Republic of China independence movement redirect.) Then there's always the problem of Kinmen and Matsu Islands, whose residents participate in ROC politics but generally don't identify geographically or historically with the island Taiwan. (Many Taiwan independence activists also exclude Kinmen and Matsu from their vision of independent Taiwan.) I understand Republic of China is a confusing name, but I think this move will potentially generate more confusion, since we are dealing with politics and this particular topic requires some precision per WP:NEUTRAL. But I don't object moving some of the historical material to a new article Politics of the Republic of China (1912–49) since it's definitely a different topic. Timmyshin (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a nuanced topic and in cases such as this, it helps to be WP:PRECISE. The argument that WP:CONSISTENCY should apply is not always accepted - for example President of Ireland (corresponding country article at Republic of Ireland). Similarly, for different political entities, we have President of the State of Palestine and President of the Palestinian National Authority - and even thought it is generally referred to as Palestine, we use a WP:PRECISE title to describe the scope of the article. Yes, although the ROC (which has defacto control over Taiwan) is often referred to as Taiwan itself, the political entity still remains ROC. (The political entity is not Taiwan - like Timmyshin said, we wouldn't have a Taiwan independence movement otherwise). Articles like "Politics of..." always linked to a political entity which in this case is ROC. Should there be a Taiwan independence in the future and the new Taiwan Republic renounces the claims of the ROC, we should create a new article about Politics in Taiwan. I also second the suggestion that Politics of the Republic of China (1912–49) be created and part of the material moved there as it can exist as a standalone topic. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

RGloucester, if it makes you feel any better, I removed the "Taiwan" part from the hatnote. George Ho (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Somehow, it is reverted by Tim. George Ho (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

RfC

 * 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.

Because this article shows the ROC, why not split it into the mainland rule from 1912 to 1949 and this article can include the political history when Taiwan was ruled by the European, Qing and Japanese for years. Supreme Dragon (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 * 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.

Survey (RM)

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

 * Oppose or procedural close - This is nothing more than a split proposal. Also, changing the title wouldn't benefit good results, especially as the consensus at the previous RM opposed the change. See more at Discussion. George Ho (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Immediate close: I decided not to continue with this. Please withdraw. Supreme Dragon (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (RM)

 * Any additional comments:

Supreme Dragon, may you please withdraw the RM proposal and then try the WP:RFC procedure instead? That way, it gets more attention. I'll help out if you want to. --George Ho (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Supreme Dragon (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Survey (RfC)

 * Oppose - I don't think anyone the majority can support this proposal. The whole scope of this article is about the "Republic of China", not the Taiwan island, though ROC has lived in exile in Taiwan since the Chinese Civil War. Also, the proposal is too simplistic to describe the complexity of the topic. --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC); amended after latest vote. 19:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current government of the Republic of China is a continuation of the pre-1949 government, the differences are geographical, not political and the same constitution, political institutions, and even politicians (like Chiang Kai-Shek) moved with the government, the current Republic of China is still "the Old Republic of China", and splitting the page would incorrectly make it seem as if the old Republic of China's politics ceased to function when their territory was reduced to Taiwan. Donald Trung (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Taiwan and Republic of China (1912-1949) are treated as two different articles, which reflects the consensus of previous discussions on Wikipedia. As such there should also be two separate articles for Politics of Taiwan and Politics of the Republic of China (1912-1949). Taiwan and Republic of China (1912-1949) do not implement the same constitution, which has undergone seven amendments since 1949. In addition, the governmental organisation, the political parties, and the parliament have changed drastically since then. All these justify treating the topics in two different articles. Lysimachi (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The current RoC constitution was adopted in 1947, before the government was forced to flee the mainland in 1949. Yes, the politics of the RoC have changed over time, but so have the politics of all countries. The RoC of today is the same RoC that was on the mainland, a direct continuation of that government, and these cannot be separated. This article has always been about the RoC, and not about Taiwan. Taiwan has a completely separate political history from that of the RoC, including Japanese, Qing, and Dutch rule. If it isn't clear enough, I absolutely oppose this proposal. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose per all the arguments in the above opposes, which said it more concisely than I would. The sole support above isn't very compelling to me: the very fact that we already have separate Taiwan and Republic of China (1912-1949) articles militates again this split idea, since it would lead to excessive redundancy. By its nature, the present article is about the Republic of China, which is a political not geographical entity, and once controlled all of China, and is now reduced to Taiwan, territory-wise. Taiwan's pre-RoC political history is already covered at Taiwan in its history section, and (as just another part of their territory) on the articles about the Qing, etc. "Ain't broke, don't 'fix' it."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC)
Supreme Dragon, may I please close this discussion as "opposed by consensus"? Seems that the majority is against this. George Ho (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdraw RfC. Supreme Dragon (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 22 December 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There's no real objection to this move; issues with the article besides the article name is outside the scope of this discussion and should be further discussed elsewhere on the talk page. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior  00:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Politics of the Republic of China → Politics of Taiwan – Per WP:COMMONNAME, this should not be a controversial move, but due to the move history, seeking comments and consensus to move here. Taiwan is the main article for which this article covers politics. The common name consensus specific to Taiwan-related topics was thoroughly discussed and established through Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20. This article covers modern topics as well as both Taiwanese history pre-ROC and early ROC on mainland China - the same is true for Taiwan. For what it's worth, this convention is applied to Politics of China (not named Politics of the People's Republic of China), so the move would be appropriate for consistency. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Move or disambiguate due to ambiguity with Republic of China (1912–1949). SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Comment not sure, WP:CONSUB makes an exception for at least the Government of the Republic of China to remain at that title arguing it covers topics before "Taiwan". Not sure if this is the reason why the current article title here is used, if this article also covers enough non-Taiwan ROC historical politics.  Dank Jae  00:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. With the exception of the Geography of Taiwan, I think everything about Taiwan should be split at 1949.  Something happened in 1949, and it’s quite confusing for a few articles to gloss over that event. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Government of the ROC is a specific institution that moved to Taiwan, and is specifically and narrowly called out in WP:CONSUB. That topic is different from broader Taiwanese politics (ultimately what this article is about), having its own history, leftover institutions from the Japanese era, etc. I get that the 1949 event is significant, but the fact is that the article is arguably part of a larger Taiwan topic, rather than a specific ROC institution. A lot of the main ROC topics are or should be captured at either Government of the Republic of China or Republic of China (1912–1949). Someone looking to find info on the politics of 1912–1949 ROC are more likely to search politics of China than politics of the ROC in any case, purely based on the historical context. Butterdiplomat (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Lean support Having thought over this, as a whole the title is descriptive rather than a common noun, but the spirit Commonname is that "Taiwan" will be more recognizable to readers. There are some cases where Republic of China may remain a term most in keeping with WP:AT, but the "Politics of X" article series are about current politics, and current politics would be discussed in terms of Taiwanese politics. (The article being underdevelped is another matter.) CMD (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Support (and also section move WP:SECMOVE) per WP:COMMONNAME. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, had seen Politics of China, Politics of North Korea, Politics of South Korea instead of PRC, DPRK, ROK. Most, including News Media, simply called Taiwan, the few that called official names are mostly governmental institutions/entities. Given that there are some paragraphs about ROC Era in Mainland China Pre-1949 in this article, would be better to move WP:SECMOVE to Republic of China (1912–1949) (similar to Russian Empire). --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. WP:CONSISTENT guides to a page move. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning support over this but I'm not seeing the rationale of adding a NPOV tag in the article. Are there other issues aside from a proposed page move? John Yunshire (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is a consensus here to move? The NPOV tag is unrelated to the article name, but I guess there are broader problems with the content than NPOV. In any case, I’m not seeing any real opposition to the page move. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding about (not published officially since 2006)
Regarding about (not published officially since 2006), I tried to find a reference source for that about <<Mainland China not published officially since 2006>> which doesn't have citation yet, so far couldn't find for 2006 <<中華民國年鑑九十五年>> or <<中華民國年鑑>> or <<中華民國九十五年>>/<<中華民國95年>>, to show the difference between 2006 & 2005 yearbook, so far found only printed book for sales, so far none. (That 中華民國九十四年年鑑 第一篇　總論 was the last yearbook (2005/ROC94) that had included Mainland China). Anywhere can I find 2006 yearbook open-access to show the differences or any source that could back it up on <<Mainland China not published officially since 2006>>? (Actually becuase it's about content, I'm starting in Article Talk page here instead of User page) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 * This was a translation from 中華民國行政區劃 and 中華民國公告疆域行政區劃, which have a few citations. But would note these articles actually say the map was discontinued after 2004 (starting 2005). Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * my bad, didn't said that I had read it from 中華民國行政區劃, however this supposedly "archive" page are actually empty (all are HTTP 404 not found) Since that statement doesn't have citation, other might say WP:NEEDCITE and challenged it. I hadn't read (and now just read) the other, especially [廢止「編印大陸地區地圖注意事項」] 2004/ROC93 order. From what I understand, 2004 order cease publication of Mainland China map, 2005 the last yearbook that contain such map, and 2006 yearbook the first without such map (which doesn't have any open-source material to compare 2005/2006 book). Since it so cumbersome (2004 order..2005 last..2006 first to do away) I would, from <<Historically but no longer published since 2006>> I would had do away the year/date or just phrase it (Historically but no longer published since early 2000s) with that 2004 order cited as source reference....is it ok? --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Butterdiplomat, since I hadn't heard reply from you, I will take it as non-objection. I will make changes accordingly (Historically but no longer published since early 2000s) with 2004 Statutory instrument order from 中華民國公告疆域行政區劃 - [廢止「編印大陸地區地圖注意事項」 --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is fine in my view. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
Why is this article's neutrality now being disputed? Jarble (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Some of it was resolved in my view. I will remove the tag. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Politics of Taiwan


text:
Religious nationalism

Religious nationalism can be understood in a number of ways, such as nationalism as a religion itself, a position articulated by Carlton Hayes in his text Nationalism: A Religion, or as the relationship of nationalism to a particular religious belief, dogma, ideology, or affiliation. This relationship can be broken down into two aspects: the politicisation of religion and the influence of religion on politics.

In the former aspect, a shared religion can be seen to contribute to a sense of national unity, a common bond among the citizens of the nation. Another political aspect of religion is the support of a national identity, similar to a shared ethnicity, language, or culture. The influence of religion on politics is more ideological, where current interpretations of religious ideas inspire political activism and action; for example, laws are passed to foster stricter religious adherence.

Ideologically-driven religious nationalism may not necessarily be targeted against other religions per se, but can be articulated in response to modernity and, in particular, secular nationalism. Indeed, religious nationalism may articulate itself as the binary of secular nationalism. Nation-states whose borders are relatively recent or that have experienced colonialism may be more prone to religious nationalism, which may stand as a more authentic or "traditional" rendering of identity. Thus, there was a global rise of religious nationalism in the wake of the end of the Cold War, but also as postcolonial politics (facing considerable developmental challenges, but also dealing with the reality of colonially-defined, and therefore somewhat artificial, borders) became challenged. In such a scenario, appealing to a national sense of Islamic identity, as in the case of Pakistan (see two-nation theory), may serve to override regional tensions.

The danger is that when the state derives political legitimacy from adherence to religious doctrines, this may leave an opening to overtly religious elements, institutions, and leaders, making the appeals to religion more 'authentic' by bringing more explicitly theological interpretations to political life. Thus, appeals to religion as a marker of ethnicity create an opening for more strident and ideological interpretations of religious nationalism. Many ethnic and cultural nationalisms include religious aspects, but as a marker of group identity, rather than the intrinsic motivation for nationalist claims.

Buddhist nationalism
Buddhist Nationalism is mainly prevalent and influential in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, and is also present in Cambodia and Thailand.

Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism is a political ideology that combines a focus on Sinhalese culture and ethnicity with an emphasis on Theravada Buddhism, which is the majority belief system of the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka.

The Patriotic Association of Myanmar and 969 movement have the goal to "organise and protect" the Burman people and their Buddhist religion, which is influenced by Buddhist nationalism in Myanmar.

Christian nationalism
Christian nationalists focus more on internal politics, such as passing laws that reflect their view of Christianity. In countries with a state Church, Christian nationalists, in seeking to preserve the status of a Christian state, uphold an antidisestablishmentarian position. They actively promote religious (Christian) discourses in various fields of social life, from politics and history to culture and science; with respect to legislation for example, Christian nationalists advocate Sunday blue laws. Distinctive radicalized forms of religious nationalism or clerical nationalism (clero-nationalism or clerico-nationalism) were emerging on the far-right of the political spectrum in various European countries especially during the interwar period in the first half of the 20th century.

 * In the Middle Ages, efforts were made to establish a Pan-Christian state by uniting the countries within Christendom. Christian nationalism played a role in this era in which Christians felt the impulse to recover lands in which Christianity flourished. After the rise of Islam, certain parts of North Africa, East Asia, Southern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East lost Christian control.
 * In Poland, nationalism was always characterized by loyalty to the Catholic Church. Groups like the National Revival of Poland use slogans like Wielka Polska Katolicka (Great Catholic Poland) and protest vigorously against legalization of gay marriage and abortion. Conservative religious groups connected with Radio Maryja are often accused of harboring nationalist and antisemitic attitudes.
 * Religious nationalism which is characterized by communal adherence to Eastern Orthodoxy and national Orthodox Churches is found in many states of Eastern Europe as well as in the Russian Federation and Serbia.

Hindu nationalism
Given the extensive linguistic, religious, and ethnic diversity of the Indian population, nationalism in India in general does not fall within the purview of a solitary variant of nationalism. Indians may identify with their nation on account of civic, cultural, or third-world nationalism. Commentators have noted that in modern India, a contemporary form of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, has been endorsed by the Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

Hindutva (meaning "Hinduness"), a term popularised by Hindu nationalist Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923, is the predominant form of Hindu nationalism in India. Hindutva is championed by right-wing Hindu nationalist volunteer organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), widely regarded as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's parent organisation, along with its affiliate organisations, notably the Vishva Hindu Parishad.

Islamic nationalism
Unlike the secular form of nationalism which is espoused in most other countries, Pakistani nationalism is religious in nature, consisting of Islamic nationalism. Religion was the basis of the Pakistani nationalist narrative. (see Secularism in Pakistan) Pakistani nationalism is closely associated with Muslim heritage, the religion of Islam, and it is also associated with Pan-Islamism, as it is described in the Two-nation theory. It also refers to the consciousness and the expression of religious and ethnic influences that help mould the national consciousness. Pakistan has been called a "global center for political Islam". Hamas is a party which mixes Palestinian nationalism with Islamism. Turkish-Islamic nationalism and Kurdish-Islamic nationalism are more examples of religious nationalism. Jaish ul-Adl mixes Baloch nationalism with Islam. The Taliban's ideology combines Islamism with Pashtunwali. Somali Islamist movement Al-Shabaab incorporates Somali religious nationalism and anti-imperialism into its Salafi Jihadist ideology.

Nationalism in modern paganism
Paganism resurfaces as a topic of fascination in 18th to 19th-century Romanticism, in particular in the context of the literary Viking revivals, which portrayed historical Celtic, Slavic and Germanic polytheists as noble savages.

Romanticist interest in non-classical antiquity coincided with the rise of Romantic nationalism and the rise of the nation state in the context of the 1848 revolutions, leading to the creation of national epics and national myths for the various newly formed states. Pagan or folkloric topics were also common in the musical nationalism of the period.

Organisations such as the Armanen-Orden represent significant developments in neo-pagan esotericism and Ariosophy after World War II, but they do not all constitute forms of Nazi esotericism. Some northern European neopagan groups, such as Theods, Ásatrúarfélagið, and Viðartrúar, have explicitly stated that neo-Nazism is not common among their members.

Jewish nationalism
Religious Zionism is an ideology that combines Zionism and Orthodox Judaism. Before the establishment of the State of Israel, most Religious Zionists were observant Jews who supported Zionist efforts to rebuild a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. After the Six-Day War, and the capture of the West Bank, right-wing supporters of the Religious Zionist movement integrated themselves into Israeli nationalism and they eventually founded a new movement which evolved into Neo-Zionism, the ideology of Neo-Zionism revolves around three pillars: the Land of Israel, the People of Israel, and the Torah of Israel.

Shinto
The "State Shinto" term was used to categorize, and promote, Imperial Japanese practices that relied on Shinto to support Japan's nationalistic ideology. By refusing to ban Shinto practices outright, Japan's post-war constitution was thus able to preserve full freedom of religion.

Sikh
The Khalistan movement is a Sikh separatist movement seeking to create a homeland for Sikhs by establishing a sovereign state, called Khālistān ('Land of the Khalsa'), in the Punjab region. The proposed state would consist of land that currently forms Punjab, India, and Punjab, Pakistan.

Other religious movements and nationalism
In the Korean peninsula, the Donghak movement and its leader, Choe Je-u, were inspired by Korean Catholic missionaries. However, they condemned the 'Western learning' preached by missionaries and contrasted it with the indigenous 'Eastern learning'. They started a rebellion in 1894 in Jeolla province in southwestern Korea. The Donghak movement served as a template for the later Daejonggyo and Jeungsan-gyo movements, as well as for other religious nationalist movements. The Buddhist-influenced Daejonggyo movement financed guerillas in Manchuria during Japanese colonial rule of both Korea and Manchuria. The North Korean state ideology, Juche, is sometimes classified as a religion in the United States Department of State's human rights reports.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Religious nationalism


text:
Talk:Jewish ethnicity

Jewish ethnicity does not revolve only around religion. There are a lot of self-identified Jews who are atheists. Nationalism does not equal Zionism. In pre-war Europe the Jewish Bund party was a secular socialist group that promoted Jewish cultural autonomy within European nation states--i.e., the Jews would be recognized as a distinct ethnic minority, not based on religion. This was the same principle behind Lenin's Birobidzhan project. As for conversion, there were times when Judaism apparently did proselytize. Many important figures in Jewish history are converts or descended from converts, including two of the most outstanding figures of the Roman period Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Meir. Even today, all branches of Judaism accept converts, arguing only over what the standards should be for conversion. Danny 18:21 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with the redirect, although I will not undo it right now. I think all the articles about Jewish people, as well as the relations of Jews and Judaism to the non-Jewish world, would do better if there were more shorter articles.

Trying to amass as much as possible into several big article is not working for me. And all these redirects are just obscuring the issues.

If there is disagreement over whether "Zionism" is (or is not) a form of "Jewish ethnocentrism", then we need an article about that controversy, which I think we currently have.

Similarly, if the question of what "Jewish ethnicity" is, is an issue, than it should not be hidden in the Jew or Jewish article but broken out as an article of its own. Such a Jewish ethnicity article might be somewhat redundant, but redundancy is better than obscurity. --Uncle Ed 15:11 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jewish ethnicity


text:
Anapaest

An anapaest (also spelled anapæst or anapest, also called antidactylus) is a metrical foot used in formal poetry. In classical quantitative meters it consists of two short syllables followed by a long one; in accentual stress meters it consists of two unstressed syllables followed by one stressed syllable. It may be seen as a reversed dactyl. This word comes from the Greek ἀνάπαιστος, anápaistos, literally "struck back" and in a poetic context "a dactyl reversed".

Because of its length and the fact that it ends with a stressed syllable and so allows for strong rhymes, anapaest can produce a very rolling verse, and allows for long lines with a great deal of internal complexity.

Apart from their independent role, anapaests are sometimes used as substitutions in iambic verse. In strict iambic pentameter, anapaests are rare, but they are found with some frequency in freer versions of the iambic line, such as the verse of Shakespeare's last plays, or the lyric poetry of the 19th century.

Trimeter
Here is an example from William Cowper's "Verses Supposed to be Written by Alexander Selkirk" (1782), composed in anapaestic trimeter:

 * I must finish my journey alone

Tetrameter
An example of anapaestic tetrameter is the "A Visit from St. Nicholas" by Clement Clarke Moore (1823):

 * Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house

The following is from Byron's "The Destruction of Sennacherib":

 * The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold
 * And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold
 * And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea
 * When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.

Hexameter
An even more complex example comes from Yeats's The Wanderings of Oisin (1889). He intersperses anapests and iambs, using six-foot lines (rather than four feet as above). Since the anapaest is already a long foot, this makes for very long lines.

 * Fled foam underneath us and 'round us, a wandering and milky smoke
 * As high as the saddle-girth, covering away from our glances the tide
 * And those that fled and that followed from the foam-pale distance broke.
 * The immortal desire of immortals we saw in their faces and sighed.

The mixture of anapaests and iambs in this manner is most characteristic of late-19th-century verse, particularly that of Algernon Charles Swinburne in poems such as The Triumph of Time (1866) and the choruses from Atalanta in Calydon (1865). Swinburne also wrote several poems in more or less straight anapaests, with line-lengths varying from three feet ("Dolores") to eight feet ("March: An Ode").

Heptameter
Neutral Milk Hotel's song "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" can be described as mainly being written in anapaestic heptameter, or two dimetric lines followed by a trimetric one. At the end of the verses there is a critic monometer and a line that is a variation of an iambic pentameter.

 * What a beautiful face
 * I have found in this place
 * That is circling all 'round the sun
 * What a beautiful dream
 * That could flash on the screen
 * In a blink of an eye and be gone from me
 * Soft and sweet
 * Let me hold it close and keep it here with me

Comic poetry
The anapaest's most common role in English verse is as a comic metre: the foot of the limerick, of Lewis Carroll's poem The Hunting of the Snark (1876), Edward Lear's The Book of Nonsense (1846), Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats (1939) by T. S. Eliot, a number of Dr. Seuss books, among other examples.

title: Anapaest


text:
Genesis (spacecraft)

Genesis was a NASA sample-return probe that collected a sample of solar wind particles and returned them to Earth for analysis. It was the first NASA sample-return mission to return material since the Apollo program, and the first to return material from beyond the orbit of the Moon. Genesis was launched on August 8, 2001, and the sample return capsule crash-landed in Utah on September 8, 2004, after a design flaw prevented the deployment of its drogue parachute. The crash contaminated many of the sample collectors. Although most were damaged, some of the collectors were successfully recovered.

The Genesis science team demonstrated that some of the contamination could be removed or avoided, and that the solar wind particles could be analyzed using a variety of approaches, achieving all of the mission's major science objectives.

Objectives
The mission's primary science objectives were:
 * To obtain precise solar isotopic abundances of ions in the solar wind, as essentially no data having a precision sufficient for solving planetary science problems are available;
 * To obtain greatly improved solar elemental abundances by factor of 3–10 in accuracy over what is in the literature;
 * To provide a reservoir of solar matter for 21st century science to be archived similarly as the lunar samples.

Accordingly, in order to meet the mission science objectives, the Genesis spacecraft was designed to collect solar wind ions and return them to Earth for analysis. Genesis carried several different solar wind collectors, all of which passively collected solar wind; that is, the collectors sat in space facing the Sun, while the ions in the solar wind crashed into them at speeds over 200 km/s and, on impact, buried themselves in the surface of the collectors. This passive collection is a process similar to that used by the semi-conductor industry to make certain types of devices, and a simulation of the process is given by the free-access program SRIM.

Most of the Genesis collectors continuously sampled all of the solar wind which the spacecraft encountered (the "bulk solar wind"). However, the spacecraft also carried three arrays of collectors which were deployed when specific "regimes" (fast, slow, coronal mass ejections) of solar wind were encountered, as determined by the electron and ion monitors on board. These deployable collector arrays were designed to provide data to test the hypothesis that the rock-forming elements keep their relative proportions throughout the processes which form the solar wind.

There was a third type of collector on Genesis: the concentrator, which collected bulk solar wind, but was discriminating in that it electrostatically repelled hydrogen and had enough voltage to focus the lighter solar wind elements onto a small target, concentrating those ions by a factor of ~20. The objective of the concentrator was to bring back a sample with enhanced amounts of solar wind ions to make it possible for analysts to precisely measure the isotopes of the light elements.

Mission profile

Genesis was a Discovery-class mission of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) at the California Institute of Technology. The spacecraft was designed and built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems at a total mission cost of US$264 million.

NASA launched the craft on a Delta II 7326 rocket on August 8, 2001, at 16:13:40 UTC from Cape Canaveral. The development of the trajectory for the mission was led by Martin Lo. Following launch, Genesis cruised to the Earth-Sun then performed a Lissajous orbit insertion maneuver, entering an elliptical orbit about  on November 16, 2001. Genesis exposed its collector arrays on December 3, and began collecting solar wind particles. The collection process ended after 850 days, on April 1, 2004, with the spacecraft completing five halo loops around. Genesis began its return to Earth on April 22, 2004. The return phase included an orbital detour toward the Earth so that the craft could be recovered during the daytime, as a direct approach would have forced it to be recovered at night. After completing one halo loop about, the Genesis sample return capsule separated from the spacecraft bus and returned to Earth for the planned recovery on September 8, 2004.

Recovery phase
Following completion of the collection phase, the collector arrays were stowed in a sample return capsule, and the spacecraft returned to Earth. As the capsule was approaching Earth and at the first stages of re-entry, all appeared well.

Extensive planning had been conducted for the capsule's retrieval. A normal parachute landing might have damaged the delicate samples, so the mission design called for a mid-air retrieval of the sample return capsule. About 33 km above the ground, a drogue parachute was to be deployed to slow descent. Then, at a height of 6.7 km, a large parafoil was to be deployed to slow descent further and leave the capsule in stable flight. A helicopter, with a second helicopter as a backup, was then to attempt to catch the capsule by its parachute on the end of a five-meter hook. Once retrieved, the capsule would have been soft-landed.

The sample return capsule entered Earth's atmosphere over northern Oregon at 16:55 UTC on September 8, 2004, with a velocity of approximately 24706 mph. Due to a design flaw in a deceleration sensor, parachute deployment was never triggered, and the spacecraft's descent was slowed only by its own air resistance. The planned mid-air retrieval could not be carried out, and the capsule crashed into the desert floor of the Dugway Proving Ground in Tooele County, Utah, at about 86 m/s.

The capsule broke open on impact, and part of the inner sample capsule was also breached. The damage was less severe than might have been expected given its velocity; it was to some extent cushioned by falling into fairly soft ground.

Unfired pyrotechnic devices in the parachute deployment system and toxic gases from the batteries delayed the recovery team's approach to the crash site. After all was made safe, the damaged sample-return capsule was secured and moved to a clean room for inspection; simultaneously a crew of trained personnel scoured the site for collector fragments and sampled the local desert soil to archive as a reference by which to identify possible contaminants in the future. Recovery efforts by Genesis team members at the Utah Test and Training Range – which included inspecting, cataloging and packaging various collectors – took four weeks.

Fate of spacecraft bus

After releasing the sample return capsule on September 8, 2004, the spacecraft bus traveled back toward the Earth-Sun Lagrange Point. A trajectory correction maneuver was performed on November 6, 2004, permitting the spacecraft bus to eventually leave if it was not used for an extended mission. Final commands were transmitted to the bus on December 2, 2004, placing Genesis into hibernation. While in this "safe" mode, it will continue transmitting information about its condition, autonomously pointing its solar arrays toward the Sun. The spacecraft bus left around February 1, 2005, staying in a heliocentric orbit leading the Earth.

Sample extraction and results

Initial investigations showed that some wafers had crumbled on impact, but others were largely intact. Desert dirt entered the capsule, but not liquid water. Because the solar wind particles were expected to be embedded in the wafers, whereas the contaminating dirt was thought likely just to lie on the surface, it was possible to separate the dirt from the samples. Unexpectedly, it was not terrestrial desert soil introduced in the crash that proved most difficult to deal with during the sample analysis process, but the craft's own compounds such as lubricants and craft-building materials.

The analysis team stated that they should be able to achieve most of their primary science goals. On September 21, 2004, the extraction began, and in January 2005 a first sample piece of an aluminum wafer was sent to scientists at Washington University in St. Louis for analysis.

The Genesis solar wind samples are under long-term curation at NASA Johnson Space Center so that as sample analysis techniques evolve, pristine solar wind samples will be available to the scientific community in the decades to come.

Noble gases
In 2007, scientists at Washington University published detailed neon and argon isotope findings. The remaining results on the elemental and isotopic composition of the noble gases were reported in 2009. The results agree with data from lunar samples containing "young" (~100 million years) solar wind, indicating that solar wind composition has not changed within at least the last 100 million years.

Oxygen isotopes
On April 20, 2005, scientists at the Johnson Space Center in Houston removed the four solar wind collectors from the concentrator and found them in excellent condition. The concentrator's targets collected solar-oxygen ions during the mission and would be analyzed to measure solar-oxygen isotopic composition, the highest-priority measurement objective for Genesis.

The team announced on March 10, 2008, that analysis of a silicon carbide wafer from the Genesis concentrator showed that the Sun has a higher proportion of oxygen-16 (^{16}O) relative to the Earth, Moon, Mars, and bulk meteorites. This implies that an unknown process depleted oxygen-16 by about 6% from the Sun's disk of protoplanetary material prior to the coalescence of dust grains that formed the inner planets and the asteroid belt.

Nitrogen isotopes
Nitrogen was a key target element because the extent and origin of its isotopic variations in Solar System materials were unknown. Target material showed that implanted solar wind nitrogen has a ^{15}N/^{14}N ratio of $2.18$ (that is, ≈40% poorer in ^{15}N relative to the terrestrial atmosphere). The ^{15}N/^{14}N ratio of the protosolar nebula was $2.27$, which is the lowest ^{15}N/^{14}N ratio known for Solar System objects. This result demonstrates the extreme nitrogen isotopic heterogeneity of the nascent Solar System and accounts for the ^{15}N-depleted components observed in Solar System reservoirs.

Mishap Investigation Board (MIB)

A 16-member NASA Mishap Investigation Board (MIB) was appointed, including experts on pyrotechnics, avionics, and other specialties. The MIB started its work on September 10, 2004, when it arrived at Dugway Proving Ground. It determined that all scientific hardware meant to be curated by the Johnson Space Center could be released and were not needed for the work of the board. Both JPL and Lockheed Martin began to prepare flight data and other records for the MIB.

It was announced by the MIB on September 20, 2004, that the capsule, having had the science material extracted, would be moved to the Lockheed Martin Space Systems facility near Denver, Colorado, for MIB use.

A first possible root cause of the failed deployment of the parachutes was announced in an October 14 press release. Lockheed Martin had designed the system with an acceleration sensor's internal mechanisms wrongly oriented (a G-switch was backwards), and design reviews had not caught the mistake. The accelerometer was installed according to the incorrect design. The intended design was to make an electrical contact inside the sensor at 3 g-force, maintaining it through the maximum expected 30 g-force, and breaking the contact again at 3 g to start the parachute release sequence. Instead, no contact was ever made.

The same general parachute concept was also used on the Stardust cometary sample return spacecraft, which landed successfully in 2006.

NASA investigation board chair Michael Ryschkewitsch noted that none of the stringent review procedures at NASA had picked up a mistake, saying, "It would be very easy to mix this up."

This mishap is similar to the original event that inspired Edward A. Murphy Jr. to formulate the now-famous Murphy's Law: an accelerometer installed backwards. On January 6, 2006, Ryschkewitsch revealed that a pre-test procedure on the craft was skipped by Lockheed Martin, and he noted that the test could have easily detected the problem.

title: Genesis (spacecraft)