• randint@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m pretty sure they would rather use Taiwan as their name in Olympics if China allowed them to.

          • diablexical@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Haha you got me there! Guess that settles it.

            Question - do you know if they include Taiwan’s gold medal count with mainland China’s?

      • randint@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Chinese Taipei is not a place name. It is the name people in Taiwan use to participate in sports. Like it or not, the island is called Taiwan, whether they are their own nation or just a province of China.

          • randint@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can accept you claiming that Taipei is a city in China, but the Wikipedia article you link to does not seem to agree.

            • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But it does? I mean it’s a long article, I’m not going to read the whole thing for something this uncontroversial, but I’ll back up my very factual assertion with evidence from the opening paragraph.

              Taipei (/ˌtaɪˈpeɪ/),[4]

              This implies Taipei exists, thus backing up my assertion that “Taipei is” and “is”.

              officially Taipei City,[I]

              Since it’s named Taipei city, this is circumstantial proof that Taipei is a city.

              is the capital[a]

              Capitals are cities, this backs my assertion that Taipei is a city.

              and a special municipality of Taiwan.[7][8]

              Taiwan is a location in China, this backs my assertion that Taipei is a city associated with China if you combine it with the rest of the sentence. Technically it could still be somewhere else.

              Located in Northern Taiwan,

              This means that Taipei is on Taiwan, so now the information presented has changed from being associated with to being inside of.

              Taipei City is an enclave of the municipality of New Taipei City that sits about 25 km (16 mi) southwest of the northern port city of Keelung.

              This provides specificity in case there are multiple places named Taiwan, since we now also know it’s close to Keelung which is also in China.

              Most of the city rests on the Taipei Basin, an ancient lakebed. The basin is bounded by the relatively narrow valleys of the Keelung and Xindian rivers, which join to form the Tamsui River along the city’s western border.[9]

              This doesn’t provide additional information for my purposes, but they reiterate that it’s a city and in proximity to locations in China.

              • randint@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Taipei is the capital and a special municipality of Taiwan.[7][8]

                Notice the preposition of. They did not say in. If they used in that could mean that they think Taipei is in China. But they used of, implying that Taiwan is a country. They also used the word capital, meaning a city where the political center of a country is, not as in a “city”. There is (generally) only one capital in each country. Also, the text did not at all say that Taipei is in China. That Taipei is in China is what you (incorrectly) inferred from the text.

                • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ah but Taiwan is a special municipality and has it’s own government. So this is expected actually. China is actually in a weird situation where there is a rebel government that controls a portion of the country, and they claim their capital is Nanjing. But because the regular government controls Nanjing they have a temporarily administrative centre in Taipei, since it’s the only large city under rebel control. So Taipei is just a capital in China, specifically the capital of Taiwan municipality, but isn’t the capital of China. China actually has many capitals. Hohhot, Lhasa, Nanning, Ürümqi, Taipei, Yinchuan and Beijing. (According to the rebels, it’s only Nanjing).

                  This is kinda besides the point of whether Taipei is a place or not though. You’re right, it didn’t say it’s in China. You need to click on the article for Taiwan or read further down for that. That’s why I mentioned that it has multiple place-names, so you could look those up on a map. They really should’ve mentioned where the city is, I think that’s pretty standard for an encyclopedia article on a city.

                  • randint@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Those multiple capitals in China you mentioned are actually capital cities of first-level administrative divisions (省會). They are not what people think of when they hear capital. When people hear capital they generally think of the biggest city in a country (首都). Saying that the capitals of China are Hohhot, Lhasa, Nanning, Ürümqi, Taipei, etc. is not wrong, but it’s as weird as saying that the capitals of the US are Jackson, Lansing, Springfield, Albany, etc.

                    I actually am not quite sure what we are even debating about at this point lol. Not that the points you made were bad, it’s just that the matter is kinda trivial. I couldn’t come up with more arguments besides nitpicking your errors. Can we just agree to disagree?

                    ps. the overall experience I had debating with you was actually not bad, unlike the ones I had with some people who resort to ad hominem attacks.