Talk:Taiwan passport

Eligibility for holding Taiwan passport

The article states that persons with "Proof of ROC nationality for a parent or ancestor, together with proof of descent" are eligible to hold a Taiwanese passport, however the citation above it does not mention this at all.

Are persons with this proof of ROC nationality actually eligible, as there is no reference to suggest that this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justaninfoseeker (talk • contribs) 11:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Brazil

What's the deal with Brazil? It's orange on the map, but with no info at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.146.182 (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

children of taiwanese

anyone know if a persons parents are taiwanese are they entitled to taiwanese citizenship as well?

the article states that overseas chinese may apply for an roc passport. is there a link or website that leads to an applciation of some sort, or any additional info?

i'm a taiwanese born out of the country, and i didn't get citizenship until when i applied this year. 82nigiri 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ROC follows jus sanguinis; all descendants of ROC citizens are entitled to the citizenship in principle. But this is not automatic so of course you'd need to reply. o 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria

It says that Bulgaria refuses to accept ROC passports. Is this still the case? Although not yet part of the Schengen Area, Bulgaria has to apply the same rules for immigration as Schengen countries (e.g. requiring visas for citizens of the same countries), and I would assume that this also means that Bulgaria has to accept passports from the same issuing authoroties as the Schengen countries. So is it still possible for Bulgaria to refuse to accept ROC passports? (Stefan2 00:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Passport and citizenship

The last sentense of the 1st paragraph and the 1st sentense of the 2nd paragraph directly contradict each other, can someone please clarify: does holding ROC passport imply ROC citizenship or not? o 23:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And wikipedia also states that all overseas chinese can apply for Taiwan passports. But this article also states that a Taiwanese passport indicates Taiwanese citizenship but the ROC Nationality Law article states that you must be born to Taiwanese parents to be a Taiwanese citizen. Which is it? Can all overseas chinese hold Taiwan passports or just citizens people who are children of Taiwanese?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.75.3 (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the current mention of eligible Overseas Chinese is inaccurate. The article should specify exactly which group of Overseas Chinese are eligible, and which groups are not. Technically, the relevant law states that Overseas Chinese from the mainland and Hong Kong/Macau can apply for ROC passports. Someone actually tried this, and TECO Boston wrote back that the applicant needed to be of a "Nobel Prize winner" standard to be eligible. So most Overseas Chinese from the PRC are not eligible. See http://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=83415&start=0

Some confusion might exist because it seems that it used to be possible for any Overseas Chinese to apply on the basis of ethnicity, but this is no longer the case. http://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?p=1090160#p1090160 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.69.202 (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

what is interest however is that taiwanese can have a mainland passport. which is technically illegally to do under taiwan law, but PRC allow it just to piss the taipei government off... 58.182.210.94 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

visa-free access

Please check the visa-free access countries ONE-BY-ONE (see how we do it for the articles British passport and HKSAR passport) and include more reliable sources (e.g. the consulate/immigration department/foreign ministry) of the countries concerned. Otherwise the "not verified" tag should not be removed. BN(O) 11:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TWPass.jpg

The image Image:TWPass.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

VOA for Iran, Burkina Faso & Rwanda

Please do not add them to the list, as all three require pre-travel registration and issuance of permission by authorities see :

• Burkina Faso : [1] "in exceptional cases only visa may be issued
• Iran : [2] : " a max. stay of 15 days and holding a pre-approval code obtained before arrival"
• Rwanda : [3] : " provided passenger has applied for a visa through the website www.migration.gov.rw and holds confirmation that"

Passportguy (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagging Kosovan passport with pov-title

As per discussion on Talk:Kosovan passport I conclude that the title is biased. This means that this article's title may be biased. Please join the issue. --Biblbroks's talk 22:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that Biblbroks has no support for this action, and the POV template has been removed. Bazonka (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

on visa info: an explanation

I saw some revert-warring/vandalism-calling following a removal of 2 types of information by me yesterday. Allow me to explain and let's have a discussion here instead of reverting each other... Passports and traveling to countries with passports, as well as the need for visa for travel are intimitely linked subjects and are (in my opinion) notable subjects. However, they are not the same. A long discussion was held in Jan-Feb this year (visible at Talk:passport in archives 3 and 4) on the question whether they belong on i) a single wiki, ii) whether visa-info should be removed or iii) whether visa info and passport info should be in separate wikis. The compromise was to use choice iii and therefore Visa requirements for Republic of China citizens was created. The wiki is linked here and contains both list-class info on current visa requirements as well as policy discussions; I think it would be a bit weird to have the policy discussions here when the "present policy" (the list) is treated already elsewhere... Because of that and in line with the carefully crafted consensus on talk:passport I removed the policy discussions from this wiki and removed the visa-related links. I strongly suggest to keep it this way or find out if consensus can be found for a change throughout passport/visa articles at Talk:passport. L.tak (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely L.tak. I think the recent WP:SOCK disruption will soon peter out. RashersTierney (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

QED RashersTierney (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

File:ROCpassport-2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ROCpassport-2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 13 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ROCpassport-2.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Moved to Taiwan passport Mike Cline (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Republic of China passport → Taiwanese passport – more concise and clearer name. This travel document is commonly mentioned as Taiwanese passport or Taiwan Passport. Which can be seen on the documents from European Union, Canada and United States. And "Taiwan" also showed up in the cover of this passport. 128.125.5.198 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. "Republic of China passport" is more common than "Taiwanese passport" in print media. See these ngrams: [4] [5] [6] [7]. Google books for Republic of China passport versus Taiwanese passport also show the former as more common by a factor of 2 to 1. "Republic of China passport" is the proper name of the document; it is not just given to Taiwanese people but all overseas Chinese. WP:COMMONNAME states "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." For the same reasons, United States passport is not located at "American passport." --Jiang (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment European Union, Canada, and the United States are bound by the One China policy and cannot recognize the existence of the Republic of China, so they will use "Taiwan" (not "Taiwanese") consistently throughout their websites to refer to the Republic of China. That alone, however, is not enough to establish common name. --Jiang (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Even if you wanted to move away from the "Republic of China" name, it would be a move to "Taiwan passport" rather than "Taiwanese passport" (yes, this distinction is important).--Jiang (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per consistency with the parent article at Taiwan. "Taiwan passport" plus "Taiwanese passport" outpaces "Republic of China passport" plus "ROC passport", according to both Ngram and Insights. Many readers will assume that a "Republic of China passport" is a document issued by Beijing, which is probably why this term appears so infrequently in the RS. (It flatlines on the ngram.) Kauffner (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see how the Ngram you linked supports your case. Further, just because some readers will be "confused" is not reason to move the article; that is what a hatnote is for, and the confusion will remain as "Republic of China passport" will remain a redirect. The majority of reliable sources continue to use "Republic of China passport" when mentioning this specific document. It is for the same reasons that we have not moved Flag of the Republic of China or Vice President of the Republic of China. This is the name of a document, implying a degree of technical specificity. Sentences in articles such as "Under Passport Act, persons who are Mainland Area persons, Hong Kong residents, or Macau residents may only receive an ordinary Republic of China passport with special permission" will become plainly confusing if you decided to call it a "Taiwanese passport".--Jiang (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. In U.S. law, this document is referred to as either a Taiwan passport (p. 194) or a "Republic of China" passport issued by Taiwan (ROC in quotes, p. 483).[8] Kauffner (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Taiwan - Per Kauffner. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Taiwan Passport I love NGram, it is awesome. I also love hammers, they are awesome. I don't use hammers to put in screws and I don't use NGram to answer this question. It isn't the tool we want to use. If it is a page about a passport, why are we looking at book usage? Why not look at where people go for information on use of their passport, that is actual common usage, not theoretical book references that we think is common usage: U.S. State Department uses "Taiwan Passport", India Visa office uses "Taiwan Passport", UK Border office uses "Taiwan Passport". I couldn't find official documents from any of those three countries using "Republic of China Passport". Break it down. Stop, Hammer time. SLawsonIII (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• We are looking at book usage because books represent reliable sources; WP:COMMONNAME is based on reliable sources, not just sources in general. As I explained earlier, governments are bound by the One China policy and therefore cannot use the term "Republic of China" without offending the PRC. Please show that the majority of non-government sources use "Taiwan passport". A U.S. State Department memo directing employees on how to draft documents states "Consistent with the unofficial nature of U.S.-Taiwan ties, the U.S. Government does not refer to Taiwan as the Republic of China. Neither does the U.S. Government refer to Taiwan as a country or government. We refer to Taiwan simply as Taiwan and to its governing officials as the Taiwan authorities. Not all current residents of Taiwan are known as Taiwanese; it is best to use the term people on Taiwan." There are clear policy reasons behind the usage of "Taiwan", policy reasons that do not apply to Wikipedia under our own policies.--Jiang (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What is a reliable source changes based on the context. NGram is good for some contexts (people, places, works of fiction, etc). But reliable sources for a legal document is not accessible through NGram. If the government tomorrow changes the name of the I-20 (form) to the X-721 form (or something), we would expect Wikipedia to change its name to the form used by government even if the NGram still shows I-20 as the more popular term (which of course it would). It is a legal document, it is appropriate to use the legal name used: that maximizes all of the WP:CRITERIA. It is a non-neutral point of view to use a name different from the one used by governments for describing a legal document, right? It is a lot harder to say there is a distorted point of view when the article title for a legal document adheres to legal use. SLawsonIII (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that lay usage is not the sole determinant of common name, but here it is precisely the fact that this is a legal document that we would want to give weight to the actual name of the document. But the legal name of the document is "Republic of China passport" and not "Taiwanese passport". Wouldn't it be more egregiously a violation of NPOV to ignore the issuing authority when determining the legal name of a passport? The issuing authority is the Republic of China, and even after adding "Taiwan" to the cover, it has continued to call this exclusively a "Republic of China passport." If you want to find out what the "legal name" of a document, you go to its source first, not some party unrelated to the source. And why go to the United States and not Panama? Or why not go to the People's Republic of China and just call this a "Taiwan province travel document"? Different governments will use different names for this document based on their different policies towards Taiwan. Trying to base usage on government usage is a dead end.--Jiang (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Taiwanese or Taiwan, per the country article. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Some months ago, we had a contentious series of renames for RoC-related articles to Taiwan. I recall having to ask people not to rush the changes, while otehr editors sorted out complicated dab-issues, due to RoC referring both to the mainland 1912-47 and the present island polity 1945-present. These were resolved in favour of the WP name for the present polity being known in WP as Taiwan. Since PRC was givne the China seat at UN and many countries recognised it, Taiwan was de-recognised. Taiwan is thus a largely unrecognised state. Accordingly the views of governments that have de-recognised it are not relevant. As I have said this was a decision in which we reached a consensus and we should follow it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Ambivalent as to move, as it may be worth using a more formal name for a specific document in this context. However, two of the "Oppose" arguments cited above are pretty weak -

1. Raw Google data as to the number of "Republic of China passport" hits are misleading as they will also include historical references, especially in Google Books, and references to "People's Republic of China passport" (for example, of the six non-WP-related hits on the first page of my full Google search, four are about PRC passports, one about the ROC passport in 1947 and only one about modern ROC passports; the first page of my books sees a similar, if less marked effect).
   
2. It does not matter why the references to ROC and ROC passport are relatively and increasingly infrequent, the fact is that they are. That's pretty much all we need to know for WP naming purposes. We don't need to start analysing the motivations behind US (or any other country's) policy and nomenclature and then, on concluding they have got it "wrong" or were maliciously pressured into any change, try to use WP as a platform to reverse that trend. Who set us up to do that and why the need to make the issue so complicated and subjective? N-HH talk/edits 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• "TAIWAN" is also printed on the cover page, at least it should be a part of the formal English name of this document. There's no reason why TAIWAN does not show on the article title. And the book search result of true Republic of China passport (without "People's") is only half of Taiwanese passport. 128.125.140.192 (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with your second point, but I just don't see the evidence here that "Taiwanese passport" or "Taiwan passport" is more common in usage. Without convincing evidence, I would want to defer to the actual name of this specific legal document.--Jiang (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support The title should match Taiwan unless that article is moved back to Republic of China. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, see Republic of Korea passport as another example where the common name of the state (and the location of the Wikipedia article) differs from the name of its travel document.--Jiang (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2012 (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.

I just one to point out a factual inaccuracy claim that the passport has the word taiwan on it. taiwan is only written in english on the cover, the inside as well as it chinese title does not contain the word taiwan. constitutionally, taipei has been unwilling to use the term taiwan as it still controls territories outside of it on the mainland. what is written on the cover is however not the argument for what it should be called on wiki anyway. 58.182.210.94 (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Eligibility

I have corrected the text on eligibility, since it was contradictory and did not reflect the Passport Act and Passport Act Enforcement Rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.58.66 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship vs. nationality

Regarding this edit:

First, the concept of citizenship does not exist in ROC law, with household registration in Taiwan being used a necessary condition for exercising most of the bundle of rights associated with citizenship in Taiwan. In contrast, ROC nationality is a broad concept, extending to most persons of Chinese descent; though the subset of Chinese people actually able to obtain ROC passports has been substantially limited since 2002, the number still vastly exceeds those with household registration in Taiwan. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to use terms that are accurate, not terms that fail to reflect and understand the legal reality. So terms such as "Republic of China citizens" and "citizens of Taiwan" should be entirely avoided.

Second, under the style guidelines, we tend to list the official name followed by alternative and common name, not the other way around, in the lead sentence. Country articles are an exception, as they are based on the template provided by WikiProject Countries. I do not think it is necessary to list both "Taiwan passport" and "Taiwanese passport" as they are similar. Putting "(Taiwan)" in the infobox is unnecessary; in the context of this article it clarifies nothing. --Jiang (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Manual of Style wrote: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." So it is the reason "Taiwan passport" should putted at the first place. Looking on the cover page of this passport there are three fragment of English "Republic of China", "Taiwan" and "Passport", the most common and conventional way to organize these three is "Republic of China (Taiwan) Passport". Unlike the laws which were translated in the early times (when Taiwan did not printed), Taiwan is usually included in most of the recent usage even appears in governmental announcement.[9].

For the citizen usage, the applying procedure of people who have right of abode to Taiwan and other overseas chinese is totally different. I think it should be mentioned in this article, similar to British passport and British National (Overseas) passport.128.125.5.241 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section also states, "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms. Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, the disambiguator should be omitted in the text." For this reason, both "Republic of China passport" and "Taiwan passport" should appear bolded in the lead section. Convention across Wikipedia articles is to use the more official/complete name first. For example, Snoop Dogg begins with "Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr." and not "Snoop Dogg" while the example given by the MoS is the opening to the United Kingdom article.

Trying to conclude that the document's name is "Taiwan passport" because Taiwan has been separately printed on the cover and that the laws are somehow out of date is synthesis. There are plenty of sources that don't have "Taiwan" used as the term: [10] [11] [12]

I agree that the distinction between those who have ID cards and those who don't should be made clearer, but your version "the national passport issued to citizens of Taiwan (who with household registration), and certain Overseas Chinese who are nationals of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" is redundant and ungrammatical, in addition to being borderline synthesis for concluding that people who have household registration are "citizens of Taiwan".--Jiang (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Conventionally the passport page used exactly the article title at the first place of the first sentence, e.g. Russian passport mentioned at the first place rather than "Russian Federation passport", Vietnamese passport rather than "Socialist Republic of Vietnam passport", Singaporean passport rather than "Republic of Singapore passport" at the initial. So "Taiwan passport" should put at the first place followed by the synonym "ROC passport". For the infobox, there is no obvious result to show whether "with Taiwan" or "without Taiwan" is more common, but the information is better to reflect what exactly printed on the passport. Looking on the other passport page, this field conventionally uses exactly the article name as well, but for the complex status of this passport, it better to contains as much information as possible, at least the three are showed on cover.For the citizenship, I think the house hold registration in Taiwan fully reflect the citizenship of Taiwan. I cannot figure out any exceptions which shows these two are irrelevant, like a person has house hold registration but his/her right is restricted. I think if you have this kind of example, we can discuss how to modify this sentence.128.125.5.241 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"I think" = synthesis, which is not allowed. I also think so too, but that's not enough for us to put it in Wikipedia. An example of synthesis would be "Only nationals of the Republic of China who hold household registration in the Taiwan Area are Taiwanese citizens." An example of mere statement of fact would be "Only nationals of the Republic of China who hold household registration in the Taiwan Area are able to exercise the bundle of rights associated with citizenship." I'll try to come up with a more detailed wording for the lead section.--Jiang (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you say "I think" is not allowed, we have to change the infobox title to "Taiwan Passport" which fits the convention of the passport pages. However, the phrase "Citizenship of Taiwan" and "Taiwan citizenship" does mentioned in the household registration act, in article 24 and 48. In this act also mentioned the ID card as "citizen’s National ID Cards". So from this point, "Citizens of Taiwan" is a commonly, properly, and legally phrase which can express "the ROC nationals who hold household registration in Taiwan Area" in the eligibility sentence.128.125.8.178 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Taiwan passport" is not used in official context - and whether to use this or "Republic of China passport" on the infobox has nothing to do with synthesis. The "convention" applied to most passport pages here does not apply because the nationality and demonym are not well aligned. Application of WP:COMMONNAME to the title is one issue; ensuring the accuracy of the text is another. Policy states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." and "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." Conversely, just because an article is titled a certain way does not mean the text must regard the title as official. We are already breaking from "convention" in not using a demonym in the title, as is done by various foreign governments to avoid further implicating the political status of Taiwan.

Your link mistranslated peoples (人民) to citizens (公民). Whoever translated that document needs more training. For example it translated "戶籍登記事項嗣後不存在時，應為廢止之登記。喪失中華民國國籍或臺灣地區人民身分者，亦同。" to "Any item of the household registration that does not exist afterward shall be subject to the Annulment Registration, which shall also apply to the person who loses ROC nationality or citizenship of Taiwan." Aside from using the wrong English terms, the English is ungrammatical and makes little sense. And it translated 國民身分證 to "citizen's National ID Cards". The translation of 人民 into citizens is non-standard and does not appear outside of the document. The standard translation is to "peoples" as it should be, see [13] [14]. The term 公民 does not appear in the law.--Jiang (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese text "臺灣護照" is out of place and should be deleted. A simple google search shows that this is clearly not the common name in Chinese, with almost all mentions being made from Mainland China, and a minority of non-mainland Chinese websites using to term to refer to this.--Jiang (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The household registration act I provided is a governmental translation just like yours, it shouldn't said to be mistranslated. Actually I have more to show that it is the right translation. In the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act Article 11: "Any citizen in free region of ROC reaching 20 years of age....." from "中華民國自由地區人民，年滿二十歲", so the citizen is used in various laws of ROC. Your link is the cross strait law, it only the trick to keep ambiguity of the political status, but the internal law states very clearly about the citizenship.128.125.8.182 (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because a translation appears on a government website does not mean that everything contained therein is "official" or "correct". 人民 isn't the only term they've translated into "citizen", and they've done this fairly inconsistently. The no original research policy applies here. For treatment of this subject in a reliable source, please see page 360 here.--Jiang (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The laws and articles are the governmental translation, and hence the official translation. They are also published in book by the government in Taiwan. It's a reliable source just like the book you provided. Both the book and the law translation supports the "citizenship" is existed in Taiwan. At least it a more reliable source than "your original research" about 人民 is not "citizen".68.181.1.7 (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you give Wikipedia:No original research a good read, you will see that our policy dictates a clear preference for secondary sources over primary sources. It is perfectly fine to state directly that the MOJ provides a translation equating "人民" with "citizen". Claiming that simply because this translation appears on a government website that it must be the "official translation" is synthesis and is not allowed. --Jiang (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The translation is not showed only on a website, there are variety of website use the same translation, which prove it is a systematic usage. As I did said, the translation of house hold registration law is also published in paper by the government in Taiwan. The translation and your book is at the same position which described the "citizen of Taiwan." In addition, there are various of governmental publications showed the term "citizen" is used. For example, The record of the Legislative Yuan. Which also support the citizen is an official term of translation in ROC government. 68.181.3.75 (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policy is at WP:PRIMARY.--Jiang (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, maybe the PRC should declare war and impose even more sanctions on the Wikipedia because the Wikipedia now seems to be instrumental on Taiwan effectively changing its official title. Look at the image of the passport. What do you see first? You see "Republic of China" and "中華民國." Then you see "Taiwan" without the Chinese characters for Taiwan and then Passport and "護照." The way the article is written seems to be in-congruent with what the passport cover is displayed. Perhaps we should then use the article's logic and propose that the passport cover image needs to be changed.

I agree with Jiang's synthesis argument, but this also extends to other factors with respect to Taiwan. Non-governmental almanacs, encyclopedias, and dictionaries do not place Taiwan under a section called "Partially recognized countries/states." Only the Wikipedia has created this innovation and coined such a category for Taiwan, which is also a symptom of synthesis. Allentchang (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan, Province of China

No doubt some won't like this but the fact is that "TW" is the "ISO country code for "Taiwan, Province of China"; ISO does not use the term "Taiwan" by itself. I've clarified this for the reader in the Data section. I think we should always be honest with readers, even if we do or do not like the facts. Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Name of the passport

Future editors should note that the official name of the passport is Republic of China passport, not Taiwan (ROC) passport, per the ROC passport law. The infobox added Taiwan in parentheses only to highlight the wording "Taiwan" on the cover. Pro-independent activists should refrain from personal nationalistic agendas when editing in order to avoid the conflict with WP:POV. The infobox information should always reflect the official name of the passport in oppose to the page title. C-GAUN (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External Links

All external links are dead. --213.61.244.2 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"Mainland China" v. "mainland China"

While both terms are correct, the uncapitalized version is mostly used by people from Hong Kong to distinguish Hong Kong from the mainland, while the capitalized term is used by Taiwanese to denote Taiwan's status as an independent state from China. Also, since all previous editors used the capitalized term, it's not necessary to change from that.C-GAUN (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation here. See mainland China and WT mainland China. I found "Mainland Area" at [15]. I did not find support for "Mainland China". Hong Kong English may not be appropriate for this article. Can you provide a source? Hongthay (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Capitalized "Mainland" is used by the PRC in official English version of the Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China ("Mainland" is capitalized except for the wording "Chinese mainland") and a semi-official translation of the Measures for the Control of Chinese Citizens Travelling to or from the Region of Taiwan, and like you said, Taiwanese also used capitalized "Mainland" on their official documents. Both sides have carefully avoided the word "China" in these legal texts due to the complicated Cross-Straight relations.C-GAUN (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Name (Taiwanese Vs. Republic of China)

For some reason there seems to be a Taiwanese independence bias or maybe a Mainland China = the only "real" China bias here on Wikipedia as any reference to "the Republic of China" from article titles, compare how Ireland links to the island and the political entity is the Republic of Ireland while here it's Taiwan for the political entity (which is called the Republic of China) and the Geography of Taiwan for a article identical to Ireland's, but somehow WP:COMMONNAME only applies here, as South-Korea's passport page is also referred to as the Republic of Korea passport and not the South-Korean passport, and even North-Korea's passports are referred to as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea passports, it seems very pro-Communist/pro-Taiwanese independence to name this page "Taiwanese" when Taiwan refers to a geographic entity and may be used as a nickname for the Republic of China as Holland is for the Kingdom of the Netherlands or England for the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern-Ireland or Russia for the Soviet Union, we don't call Soviet passports "Russian passports" either, the name of this article (not the introduction which should remain unchanged) seems to violate WP:NPOV.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Dulles incident

I think the exterior of Taoyuan Terminal 1 before the 2012 renovation is better comparable to Dulles Main Terminal than the post-renovation one. The pre-2012 exterior is explicitly similar to the Dulles one. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 03:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Passport number location

Mention the passport number location for each of the several generations of passports.

Sometimes it is on the photograph page.

Sometimes it is punched holes.

Jidanni (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)