Talk:Taiwan/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Description of status

For Wikipedia to describe Taiwan in the lead as a country is to usurp the United Nation's refusal to seat Taiwan as a sovereign country or state. The People's Republic of China has long maintained that Taiwan is a province, not an independent country. Provinces can have their own form of government, so just because Taiwan has exercised some autonomy in its governance does not make it a country. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/taiwans-un-dilemma-to-be-or-not-to-be/ and https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/province/print/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcywinograd (talk • contribs) Latest revision as of 22:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Despite globally disputed claims, a consensus was reached by a few people who participated in a now officially closed Wikipedia discussion to describe Taiwan in the lead as a country. This is pretty outrageous, given the fact that Taiwan's status is in serous dispute, with the United Nations refusing to seat Taiwan as an independent country. At the very least, the lead should acknowledge that Taiwan's status is in dispute. Instead, a few anonymous editors proclaimed it a sovereign nation. How absurd-and dangerous, very dangerous given that there are voices in both of the major US political parties itching for war with the nuclear-armed People's Republic of China over the status of Taiwan. For Wikipedia to declare Taiwan an independent country is to serve as a mouthpiece for these neocon voices, while contradicting official US foreign policy which adopted a 1-China policy in the 1974 Shanghai Communique. I respectfully ask that this discussion be re-opened and the lead be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcywinograd (talk • contribs) Latest revision as of 23:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

For a few Wikipedia editors to pronounce Taiwan a country and then close the "official" discussion page is troubling and undemocratic. There is no consensus on this topic, certainly not on the global stage. The People's Republic of China says Taiwan is a break-away province and has been ever seen anti-communists took up shop there, while supporters of Taiwan sovereignty and the neocons in the Biden administration and Congress insist Taiwan is a country. At the very least, the lead should reflect the dispute and not make a pronouncement that undescores a political agenda. Hawks in Congress are itching for war with the PRC over Taiwan sovereignty. Don't believe me? Read the Eagle Act in the House; Read the US Innovation and Competition Act in the Senate. This is a big deal and the discussion should be reopened. Thank you.Marcywinograd (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC. As it stands, for 71 years now, the Taiwanese have been ruled by an entirely separate government, Taiwanese leader was elected by its own citizens through democratic votes held in every four years, unlike the governors of HongKong were assigned by Beijing's preference. The PRC has never possessed sovereignty over Taiwan. The PRC has been threatening to invade and annex Taiwan "by force if necessary" ever since Chiang Kai-shek and his goons fled there in 1949. My question is... what do we view as being "neutral" on this topic? Does being "neutral" mean giving equal weight to both the defenders, the Taiwanese, who have lived on Taiwan for either decades or centuries and whose lives are daily endangered by a hostile foreign regime, and the aggressor, the People's Republic of China, a regime that has never ruled Taiwan in history and yet threatens Taiwan with military annihilation on a regular basis?

And for your information, Taiwan a.k.a the ROC was a former member before 1971 and even a founding member of the United Nation, if it matters so much to you to stress on the acknowledgement by the UN, should you add additional information over China's article highlighting about the historical fact that "the PRC was not recognised by the United Nation as legitimate government of China from 1949 and 1971" to make more consistent on both sides? By your definition, the People's Republic China only came to be a "country" from 1971 onward, isn't it?

You are free to arise the issue as many times as you like whereas the similar arguments have been brought up countless time, I reckon the consensus would be any diffrence. LVTW2 (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

You keep mentioning the UN, but I can't seem to remember when the UN gained the power to determine the meanings of English words. --Khajidha (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. User:Marcywinograd. There was an RfC, Talk:Taiwan/Archive 30#RfC:Taiwan, "country" or "state". Have you read the RfC? Have you read the article country? You may be having trouble with a too-simple translation of an old English word. Have you read the introduction through paragraph four? It’s all there, and your proposal is to stuff up the information flow and make the lede harder to read. Politics do not go in the first sentence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

For Wikipedia to declare Taiwan a country conflicts with the U.S. State Department's communique, as referenced here on the Department's web site: "The United States and Taiwan enjoy a robust unofficial relationship. The 1979 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communique, the United States recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." The lead of the Wikipedia Taiwan entry makes it sound like there is global consensus to recognize Taiwan as a country. There is no such consensus. I am asking whoever is in charge here, administrator wise, to change the lead to at least reflect the dispute and to remove any warning signs posted, either intentionally or not, that chill debate on a highly charged topicMarcywinograd (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC). Marcywinograd (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC) https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/

Okay... making your edit request to explain what exactly your suggested change over the leading article is going to be here[1], then request for a dispute resolution here [2]. It is meaningless and tedious to keep arguing with you since you denied any consensus ever made by the community in past experiences, so let us start a democratic move at your will.---LVTW2 (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, content decisions here are not made by administrators, but through discussions between editors of the sort you are complaining about.

Secondly, you have misunderstood the US diplomatic phrasing you have quoted: "acknowledging" does not mean "agreeing with". Kanguole 09:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment Unlike the UN and much of the world, Wikipedia does not kowtow to the PRC's version of events. It is an irrefutable fact that Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC. There is enough coverage of the political status of Taiwan/the ROC in the article as it is. "For Wikipedia to declare Taiwan a country conflicts with the U.S. State Department's communique, as referenced here on the Department's web site: " - The misinterpretation of what the communique aside, your point being? We are a neutral, consensus based encyclopaedia, and the consensus has been to establish Taiwan's description as a country. I wonder what you would say to the years 1949-1971, when the ROC was still seated as China in the UN? When the US recognised the ROC until 1979? The ROC's derecognition happened over time, not overnight, in fact, well into the 1990s by various states. One cannot pretend that it suddenly has ceased to exist as the UN does. Just as a side note, North Korea didn't actually enter the UN until 1991, and one should note UN GA Resolution 293, which describes the South Korean government as the only legitimate government of Korea. So yes, we can split hairs all over the place and still arrive nowhere. What's the point of trudging up this issue? I firmly believe the PRC and ROC would be able to settle their differences sooner than people within Wikipedia will. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

We also should not use Wikipedia as a soapbox. We go with what the bulk of RS say, not one organisation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I ask that the lead to this article on Taiwan be changed. It currently reads, "Taiwan,[II] officially the Republic of China (ROC),[I][h] is a country in East Asia.[20][21] It shares maritime borders with the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south." I recommend the lead be revised to read as follows: "Taiwan, the Republic of China, is an East Asian island whose status is in dispute, with the People's Republic of China claiming Taiwan is a break-away province of mainland China but supporters of Taiwan sovereignty arguing Taiwan is an independent nation. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/taiwans-un-dilemma-to-be-or-not-to-be/ https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-TaiwanMarcywinograd (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Violates wp:npov.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. By that proposed wording, you should then have no trouble changing the China article as well to: The People's Republic of China is an area based in mainland Asia whose status and legitimacy is disputed by the Republic of China and member states of the United Nations who do not recognise it as the legitimate government of China. We are NOT here to serve any one POV or the interests of one country or anything along those lines.--Tærkast (Discuss) 19:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I think is maybe time to ask for a moratorium on this question, we seem to be here once a week, and it's getting tiresome.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven - This is getting ridiculous and nowhere fast. A year or two's moratorium on this question seems reasonable. Clearly people want to continue rehashing this, and the notes at the top of this talk page does not seem in any way to serve as a deterrent.--Tærkast (Discuss) 19:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

While I do think discussing Taiwan’s status only in the fourth paragraph isn’t right, I also agree the whole “country” thing doesn’t have to be repeated over and over again. A one year moratorium seems about right. I also have the impression that many people here don’t realize the United Nations does not recognize states. Essentially, the United Nations is just an international organization as any other one, it just happens to be a very important one. The fact that Israel is a UN member state, Palestine is a UN non-member observer state and Kosovo isn’t in the UN at all has little to no implication for the question whether or not they are states. De wafelenbak (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked the material about the ROC and PRC in the second paragraph. It seems to me to cover the salient point well enough.--Khajidha (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not think we should be having this conversation every other month or two... the term "country" is perfectly acceptable for Taiwan. Even using OP's own source (National Geographic Encyclopedia), their definition of country fits Taiwan much better than the definition of a "province". According to OP's link, a country is a "geographic territory with a distinct name, flag, population, boundaries, and government."; Taiwan is indeed a geographic territory, with a distinct name, flag, population, boundaries and government. OP is also confused on what the United Nations is, it is not a government, but only a political organization. It does not have the power within international law to decide who is and isn't a "country", and can only decide who is and isn't a "member state". Directly from the United Nations: "The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government." https://www.un.org/en/about-us/about-un-membership Eclipsed830 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Moratorium on "is it a country"

OK let's make it formal.

I propose a 12-month moratorium on any more discussion about Taiwan's status as a country.

Support

• Yes, for gods sake we can't keep having this discussion every damn week.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, per Slatersteven's reasoning. --Khajidha (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. As best I can tell, the entire problem is native Chinese speakers not knowing how to translate “country”. (Hint, it does not mean “nation”, it does not mean “state”. Note the June 4, 2020 consensus close at Talk:Taiwan/Archive 30#RfC:Taiwan, "country" or "state". Revisiting the same question means initiating a new RfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, way too much time is being wasted on this issue. Endlessly relitigating the great geopolitical issues of the globe is not within our remit as wikipedia editors and yet it seems that nothing less than a moratorium will stop some from persisting in their quest to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, per what I wrote above. De wafelenbak (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, the consensus has been established. Nobody is ever going to be satisfied with the wording, nor should an attempt be made to please everyone, else we'll be here for years and years. If the PRC and ROC saw us now, they'd sooner solve their issues than we would ours. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

• No. This issue's being brought up again and again is a sign that the disputed text might not be neutral enough. Establishing an moratorium in this case does not really cure the root cause. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The root cause of irredentism can’t be addressed by the wikipedia community, there is no cure for that issue which is within out remit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The root cause is a neutrality issue. No one is talking about irredentism. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

How do you separate the issue of “neutrality” in this context from Chinese irredentism? And be specific, with direct references to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality in this case only deals with whether a piece of text is neutral enough or not. What motivates editors to point out the neutrality issue is not our concerns. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

But in this case there doesn’t actually appear to be a neutrality issue (we have a clear consensus that the current text is neutral)... If editors are motivated by nationalist POV pushing and not a genuine desire to improve wikipedia thats a problem and is actually our concern. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What was considered neutral still might have room for improvement and can likely become less disputable. I personally think that the Taiwan island is not part of China, but fairly speaking, labeling others as nationalists is as pointless as labeling others as separatists in the discussion. So let's avoid doing that in the discussion. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Fairly speaking, what separatist POV? Do you mean Taiwanese nationalists? The difference between what you originally posted[3] and this is also significant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If you label him as a nationalist, wouldn't he label you as a separatist? Since putting political labels on other editors don't really help the discussion, let's avoid doing that. Not sure why my original post is significant, but I think there is not much difference in what I expressed. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m neither Taiwanese or Chinese, I don’t have a dog in this fight. Objectively they’re both nationalists, separatists only exist from the CCP’s POV not an objective one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Many of us are neither Chinese or Taiwanese. So we are ion fact neutral in this. The problem is side A wants "sovereign country and nothing to do with China" (ignoring past issues with "we are the real China") Side B wants "Part of China and not a sovereign nation". There is no middle ground to this debate. All we are doing is going over the same arguments week in week out, and getting the same result (see below).Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

The UN does not recognise Taiwan as a country Salty Dragon in forest (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

And? So, what? I don't remember the UN having the power to define English words. --Khajidha (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

1. That is stating the obvious. 2. Said obvious is already discussed rather prominently in the article.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"Island Country/ Island Nation" reference

There were still political dispute regarding national boundary of the ROC which reflect the legal view of its sovereignty encompassing both of Mainland China and Taiwan (or Free Area in its legal term). Hence the sentence said "Taiwan is an island country" which apparently neglect the distinguishment of jurisdiction and constitutional sovereignty of the ROC. The actual countrol of the ROC lies entirely over islands, but the constitutional-defined boundary is not, in which we should maintain a neutral stance without giving a straitforward depiction of "island nation". By far, the ROC has NOT officailly renounced its constitutional-defined boundary in extent to mainland. LVTW2 (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI the press uses island nation[4][5][6][7][8] and Taiwan’s leading house of cards style political drama is called Island Nation[9]. Don’t know if that impacts your position at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I have already said... "By the offical stance", and you gave me several reports from mass medias to prove a "legal definition". How is that supposed to mean? lol LVTW2 (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not a legal document, we are not trying to establish a legal definition. Those are WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid using words that asserts the ownership of Taiwan (island) and Penghu, such as "consists of". A more suitable word could be "control". --Matt Smith (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The Republic of China claims to be the legitimate government of China but only controls Taiwan. Whether or not they are correct may be an issue, but I don't know why we debate their claims. TFD (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be vastly overstating their current position... That would have been true in 1960 but its much more nuanced today, surprised you didn’t know that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021

remove "republic of china" to refer Taiwan since china haven't taken control of Taiwan yet. 160.202.37.75 (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done This is sourced from the lead.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The "China" you're referring to is the People's Republic of China. The Republic of China is not the People's Republic of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

Taiwan is not a country recognised by the United Nations, so put it as "Taiwan is part of China" It can mean "part of Republic of China" which means Taiwan is a country or part of PR China which is mot a country. LINYU1742T (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the header at the top of the talk page. BSMRD (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do people have such a fetish about UN recognition or membership? It seems totally irrelevant to the question of whether something is a country or not. --Khajidha (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention that the UN itself does not recognize countries. Its members do. intforce (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your request... so you mean that you concur the stance of "Taiwan is a country as the ROC" or "part of China"? You have given two definitions in one sentence and I believe no one can make any change followed by your poor and vague wording. Wikipedia is not a political site so we don't do deliberate ambiguity, there is no Double-barreled question made by an edit request. 123.192.182.76 (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

infobox population figures suggest a violation of Wikipedia policy

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. For this article, it's a good start but does have an error. The population of the Republic of China should be reported in the infobox as

current version:
Population
• 2021 estimate 23,451,837[13] (56th)
• 2010 census 23,123,866[14]

more neutral version:
Population
• 2021 estimate 23,451,837[13] (56th), constitutional claims 1,411,778,724 23,451,837
• 2010 census 23,123,866[14]

Already, Wikipedia starts with some neutral language, which is correct. The lede rightfully states "The political status of Taiwan is contentious. The ROC no longer represents China as a member of the United Nations, after UN members voted in 1971 to recognize the PRC instead. Meanwhile, the ROC continued to claim to be the legitimate representative of China and its territory, although..." Charliestalnaker (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support the more neutral version of population in the infobox, reflecting reality and also ROC constitutional derived population figures. Charliestalnaker (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that display the population as such? CMD (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Doubtful, as the claims that the ROC is "all of China" (or that the PRC is "all of China") aren't really given any weight in the real world. Various governments and organizations may state that they support one side or the other, but the reality is that everybody just goes right along treating them as two separate countries in any meaningful sense. The most I could support would be a note that all statistics in this article refer only to the areas that the ROC actually controls. --Khajidha (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Charliestalnaker: can you be specific about which policy you feel is being violated here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The infobox takes one side of the debate; that Taiwan is a country. It ignores the side of the ROC constitution. Khajidha's idea above about a note that all statistics in the infobox refer only to the areas that the ROC actually controls is a reasonable solution. Charliestalnaker (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment If we did this on this article we would also have to add the population of Taiwan to China, and something tells me that that proposal would not be a popular one. BSMRD (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Leave that constitutional claim out of the infobox. But it could be included in the text with explanation, if there was a source for the number. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment Don't consider it is anything neutral... the previous one topic talking about "island nation" which is allegedly making the same premise for a hypothetical constitutional claim over mainland China as this one. And the reason is simple,the "constitutional claims" don't reflect the reality, we can mention in politic or administrative sections, as dispute issues, but the info box presents only factual figures. As is the case with China, Taiwan's population is also not included, either North or South Korea's population is based on the entire Korean peninsula, Ukrainian's total population does not include Russian-occupied Crimea, nor Falkland islands' population being counted in Argentine infobox, despite their "Constitutional definition of national boundaries" 123.192.182.76 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment The constitution does not make any specific claims. It only states that ROC territory is its "existing national boundaries". There are different viewpoints about what is included in "existing national boundaries"[10], and some of them say that mainland China is not included.--7tiu (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose we don’t do this for other countries either. South Korea may claim North Korea, that doesn't mean its population is 77 million in the infobox. Heck, even the 1,411,778,724 in the infobox in the article on China only refers to the population of Mainland China, and doesn't include Taiwan (and not even Hong Kong and Macao). So why would we do it differently in this article? De wafelenbak (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is unnecessarily pedantic. The population of China isn't relevant to the population of Taiwan, which is the important information. --Spekkios (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again

More groundless accusation of "vandalism" from User:Horse Eye's Back. They have zero evidence yet chose to revert wholesale my legitimate edits and additions. Their behavior is closer to real vandalism and is extremely destructive to making Wikipedia better. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

There are almost no improvements in those edits just a lot of POV pushing, weird moves, and copyvivo violations such as "was upgraded from a "flawed democracy" to a "full democracy", after rising 20 places from the 31st to the 11th” (source is "was upgraded from a 'flawed democracy' to a 'full democracy', after rising 20 places in the global ranking from 31st place to 11th”) when the original text was not a copyvivo violation. The overwhelming and non-helpful nature of the edits as well as edits specifically designed to block an easy undo of your edits [11] do in fact suggest vandalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What is copyvivo violation? Please use wikipedia links not slangs since I'm new. Just because you keep framing me using the labels of vandalism, POV pushing, weird moves, etc doesn't make it true. Just as how you personally disagree with the assertion that Qing dynasty annexed Taiwan doesn't mean it didn't happen. As to "edits specifically designed to block an easy undo of your edits", what on earth are you even talking about? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIVO. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay I can make improvements. No need for you to destroy everything.WikiwiLimeli (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Done, also changed other places of potential WP:COPYVIVO. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure that fully addressed the copyvivo issue. On the POV pushing why did you change Han Taiwanese to Han Chinese? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Both sources, Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the CIA, use the term "Han Chinese". I'm not against "Han Taiwanese" per se, but it's not that common to be used this way yet and definitely not appearing officially. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be correct in regards to the sources. Although I think we should avoid using their MOF if possible, why did you add it to "Some analysts consider his regime to be loyal to the Ming, while others argue that he acted as an independent ruler and his intentions were unclear.” when that already had a source and the inclusion of the MOF source and the addition of “Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and” makes the sentence WP:SYNTH as the journal does not mention the MOF and the MOF doesn’t mention anyone at all. Also just FYI even if it wasn’t SYNTH it would be WP:OR as it has to be interpreted from the MOF document and isn’t stated as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all, your stretched invocation of endless # of violations can be applied to most other edits by other users as well. A lot of them don't even have a source or cannot be verified. Do you use different standards for different people? Second, we've been through this point in the past. The wording you quoted was a compromise, because my verifiable sources call him a Ming loyalist, but some other editor gave 1 or 2 sources (behind pay-walls) that couldn't be verified, but I still gave them the credit of the doubt. The MOF straight-up calls them Ming loyalists without reservation whatsoever, which was my original position. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You can use each source to source what it says, but you can’t combine two sources to say something that individually neither of them says, please read the linked WP:SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I just looked at your most recent edits, why did you truncate the quote here[12]? Why did you turn this perfectly usable quote into a borderline copyvivo[13]? Why did you remove this quote [14]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Because previously you said it might be copy vivo. I can change the quotes back if you want to. It can be a full quote or a paraphrase, but you seem to be against both whatever I choose. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What I said was WP:COPYVIVO was not a quote, if it was a quote then it wouldn’t be a problem. If you think that quoting is a Copyright violation then please actually read Wikipedia:Copyright violations (same link as WP:COPYVIVO). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It is exhausting for User:Horse Eye's Back to keep picking on me. They rehearse old points, where I've made compromises, but now suddenly are being questioned again. Standards that don't apply to even worse-quality edits are piled on top of me. After providing sources, they don't even bother checking them or keep pretending they weren't mistaken. They keep decreeing whether certain sources are good or bad, even 3rd-party government sources from Taiwan and the U.S. What's so special about User:Horse Eye's Back's personal judgments? Even if my edits are not perfect, at least they are moving toward the right direction. What contributions have User:Horse Eye's Back even tried to make, besides spending the minimum amount of time overturning edits or taking up more of my time? This kind of inquisition has to stop. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@WikiwiLimeli: if you would provide edit summaries it could go a long way towards helping other editors understand what you’re trying to accomplish, and might even forestall some reversions. Phlar (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

K. Hopeflly you're right. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

In the section "Domestic opinion", change the words "5.7 percent gave no repsone" to "5.7 percent gave no response". 87.119.177.218 (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

done--Mr Fink (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2021

missing info about the content Anonymous HYMJ (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to say what it is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Concerning behavior

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.

---

Multiple wholesale reverts were made by the user regarding mostly editorial changes. Please note this article overall is a mess with incoherent sentences, terribly organized paragraphs and fragments everywhere. It's not possible to gradually improve with the editor who seems quite protective and seemingly desire ownership of the article. It will be whole lot better if you could just make edits that you think were suitable instead of just revert, the latter is simple and require no effort but is rather unproductive especially when a re-organization is in progress, not to mention rather hostile and disrespectful of others' time. Lolitart (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What is the reorganization that is in progress? The article seems to have a reasonably standard, if overdetailed, organization. CMD (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm done with those edits. Lolitart (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There are too many problems in these massive edits to sort through individually.

Most of the proposed subsection headings under History name discrete events, rather than the periods of history that the sections cover. They are also over-long and misleadingly simplify complex issues. A simple example is "Qing's overthrown of Ming", which is both ungrammatical and inapposite, as the Ming never ruled Taiwan.

It is true that the history section has excessive detail, but some of your edits introduce grammatical errors or distort or obscure the sense.

You've also re-arranged the lead for unclear reasons.

It is not respectful of other editors' time to make rapid large-scale changes without edit summaries (or just "reduce clutter") and then expect others to sort the good from the bad. Also, most of the material in this article is contentious, especially the lead. It is necessary to slow down, and explain what you are doing. Kanguole 12:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's nearly universal among all country articles to summarize instead of listing historical periods, as historical periods mean nothing to an outsider. 38.94.109.226 (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, you are welcome to edit, but wholesale revert is disruptive, couterproductive, and hostile. Secondly, you don't have ownership over the article, therefore your last claim is factually incorrect as edits made without edit summaries are just moving paragraphs around, there is no content change, 'reduce clutter' is what that edit is, and participation require a certain level of engagement. In this case, my editing obvious consumes more of my valuable time then your senseless revert. if you simply revert when edits are clearly made with reasons, it's largely counter-productive and hostile, and make me uncomfortable of contributing. it's possible to reconcile with additional edits and that's what you should do. Thirdly, most of the edits made are in line with the structure and patterns found commonly in other articles about specific countries including but not limited to the United States and United Kingdom. Lolitart (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any appreciation of the amount of time it takes other editors to untangle and evaluate your mass edits? Even establishing that paragraphs were moved around, without even an edit summary to say that was done, is quite time-consuming. You have mentioned the value of your time, but do you have any conception of the work you are putting on others with your expectation that they go through your mass changes and sort the good from the bad?

I repeat: slow down, be more careful, and explain what you are doing. Especially on a contentious article like this one. Kanguole 13:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I repeat, if you are not willing to make the kind of time commitment I made, then don't. Reverting all of those edits because you are somewhat unsatisfied is absurd, you don't own this article and you don't own my time. Lolitart (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You're not the only editor of this article. You need to gain consensus on these edits. I agree with others that there are serious problems with your edits (including POV issues). No one owns the article, and if you feel your time is wasted no one is forcing you to commit it. DrIdiot (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I did spend quite a while trying to untangle your edits, and found many problems, some of which I've listed above. At that point, it is easier to revert the lot than to try to pick out the good parts. You need to appreciate that you don't own our time either. The way forward is to work with other editors by going slowly and explaining what you are doing. Kanguole 13:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

These are your opinions, you are expecting someone to suit your taste without making any effort on your own, this is not a restaurant. That I think is absurd. Lolitart (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Just as one example (it's not the only one), this sentence is puzzling: "With democratization, the issue of the political status of Taiwan gradually resurfaced as a controversy despite previously being a political taboo. During the later years of Lee's administration, he was involved in corruption controversies, although no legal proceedings commenced." The first sentence is odd: discussion of Taiwanese nationhood is different from the discussion of its "political status" and it's unclear what time period "resurfaced" refers to, and "controversy" is not the right word here. The random throw in about corruption scandals is weird too; wasn't he acquitted? Why the focus on this? DrIdiot (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not my writing. I merely merged the two paragraphs about the same president into one and shortened it. After the revision, there is roughly one paragraph for each president although some of them are still too long. - Lolitart (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If this is the edit in question [[15]] it was a revert of this [[16]], which, as it removed other users addition, was a mass revert.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This was not started as an RFC, nor is the opening post neutral. This is in fact an abuse of the process.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest we close the RfC because it concerns a behavioral issue which can only be resolved at a noticeboard. Also, names of editors should not be used in section headers. Furthermore, i don't think anyone who wasn't following the previous discussions would not what the issue was. But the purpose of RfCs is to bring in outside editors. TFD (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2021 (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.

The NAMRU-2 laboratory of Taipei Taiwan

Only very little information is available concerning this medical research laboratory established in 1957. 70.112.0.57 (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

I am not sure how to keep the previous comments. Sorry if I overwrote some comments, I ended up deleting my own edit. I am typing it up here again. addressing the questions I was asked:

Change the first sentence:

"Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia. It shares maritime borders with the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south."

to:

"Taiwan, is a country in East Asia. It shares maritime borders with the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south."

The basis for this request is based on the current state of Asia.

The Chinese Nationalist Party took over the Taiwanese Government in 1945, overthrowing the Japanese.

From the source (oftaiwan.org): "When the Chinese Nationalist Party set up the Republic of China, they aimed to “civilize” the indigenous people. This meant trying to remove their language and culture. In line with this attempt are many stories that were told to depict the savageness of the indigenous people. One such story is the story of Wu Fong. He was a Han Chinese man who was sent to the village to help teach and help the tribe. After “civilizing” and teaching them, the tribe decapitated him as a tribute for their festival. This story was taught in Chinese textbooks until 1989. This same story made Han Chinese kids view their indigenous classmates as inferior savages, causing indigenous children to feel embarrassed by their identities."

This is the literal definition of colonization. Same thing happened to the Native American tribes with the "Pilgrims". Similar to the "British Raj" in India. Are the Pilgrims or British Raj now United States of America or India? No. USA and India are currently their own sovereign states with their own legislative laws.

Through the DPP's winning rule in Taiwan , there has been significant changes to what the term "Taiwan" meant. I see a parallel between the problems Hong Kong is facing with the CCP to what the current Taiwan is facing. When this was the case for Hong Kong, the wikipedia article finally decided to be not insensitive to the Hong Kong people's struggles and reworded to "Hong Kong, officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, is a city and special administrative region of China on..." . I think the same should be done with Taiwan. I am assuming the people approving/disapproving edits on this article are well-versed with the current state of Taiwan and it's disapproval of CCP.

On top of that, there is a significant rise in the indigenous groups speaking up about their experiences. They are, in all rights, "Taiwanese". Not "Republicans of China".

Therefore, based on the current state of affairs and upon the elections of DPP, and with Taiwan fitting every single definition of being a country (aka sovereign state with its own legislation), and the current ongoing disputes with China, it is highly problematic to still refer to Taiwan using the archaic term of "Republic of China". Please, do what was at least done to the Hong Kong's article!

Either 1) Explain the nuances and origins of the outdated and archaic term "Republic of China" when mentioning anything along the lines of "official a part of ROC". or 2) Refer to Taiwan as being officially called Taiwan.

Hope that cleared up the initial edit request's rationale. TowardsAutonomy (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)TowardsAutonomy

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been debated to death here. If you believe there is sufficient evidence to remove mention of the Republic of China from the lead sentence, you will need to shift the community consensus on the matter, which cannot be done with a simple edit request. BSMRD (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Upon reading the article on consensus, I am asking how I can open the floor up for discussion to reach a consensus on here? Is it just a sequence of additional edits as part of a discussion to this original request?TowardsAutonomy (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)TowardsAutonomy

Typically you would start by making a new post on the relevant talk page (without the edit request template) and getting input from other editors active on the page. If wider community input is needed you can open a WP:RFC (which this would certainly require at some point), however you should start with a general discussion. While I appreciate a genuine desire to engage, I don't think you will get very fair, you are advocating a pretty WP:FRINGE idea, held together by a fair bit of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. BSMRD (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The government of Taiwan which is now democratic still uses ROC as its official name, as well as all its military branches, which is what the sentence reflects right now. There are also some strange ideas that you seem to have judging from your arguments above. I'm not even sure where to start but what do you mean by indigenous people or groups? When do you think Taiwan was colonized, by whom? What do you mean by Taiwanese, an ethnicity or citizen to a political entity? If you can be both Okinawan and Japanese, why can't you be both Taiwanese and Chinese? What was the Taiwanese government in 1945 that you mentiond? Where do you think Taiwan's current constitution comes from? What about the territories outside of the island of Taiwan that were traditionally Chinese not native to the "Taiwanese"? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In 1945, the Chinese Nationalist Party did not overthrow the Japanese. Instead, the Empire of Japan was defeated by the Allies of World War II and then the Allies assigned the ROC authority to occupy the island of Taiwan pending the conclusion of a peace treaty between the Allies and Japan.

And it's debatable to assert that Taiwan fits every single definition of being a sovereign state. That's because the territorial sovereignty over the island of Taiwan is still an unsettled issue. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Taiwan as an independent Country

There is currently 15 countries, which views Taiwan as an independant country those include Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland and Tuvalu. Also, the countries have no relations with Beijing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disclaimer777cc (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to diplomatic recognition, the use of "Taiwan" can be confusing here. For example, the Holy See views the ROC as the sole legal representative of China rather than viewing Taiwan as an independent country. As for the other 14 countries, you need to find out how exactly they view the ROC. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Nicaragua has just dropped their recognition. Anyway they don't recognize Taiwan as an independent country, but recognize their government as the legitimate government of China of which Taiwan is a part. TFD (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

“Taiwan is a country”. Easily supported from reliable sources and supported in the recent RfC. Country is a nuanced word that is translated poorly to Chinese, and is not the translation of any commonly used Chinese word in connection to Taiwan.

”Taiwan is an independent country”. No. Disputed. De jure, under the constitution of ROC, not true. De facto? This is highly political question, the politics is introduced in the fourth paragraph, and the politics can’t be fitted into the first sentence.

”Taiwan is a Chinese renegade province”. Well, yes, this is a post-1949 historical fact, but it can’t be squeezed into the first sentence. The first sentence, and the first paragraph, are not about politics. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:ASF, ”Taiwan is a Chinese renegade province” is an opinion rather than a fact. "China claims that Taiwan Province is one of its administrative divisions" is a fact. That said, just because a polity defines a geographical area to be one of its administrative divisions does not mean it has territorial sovereignty over the area, no matter the area is currently under its control or not. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Except the government with territorial sovereignty over Taiwan does regard it as a part of China. To say "Taiwan is a part of China" is an accurate statement according to all members of the international community, including Taiwan itself. The dispute lies in which China it belongs to. BSMRD (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to the dispute about the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan, the situation is complicated and there are not just two opinions. There is also an opinion considering that the territorial sovereignty has been undetermined since 1952, and this opinion hold that neither the ROC nor the PRC has territorial sovereignty over Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

RE "Taiwan is a Chinese renegade province” is an opinion rather than a fact. I guess that requires careful attention the things like tense. I was loose with "is". It was in 1949. And remains so thereafter. Or has something changed? This question is complicated. Very complicated. There's a whole article at Political status of Taiwan. There is no way to put into the first sentence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The controversy applies even in 1949 (and thereafter). At that time, most of the Allies of WWII did not recognize that Taiwan returned to China in 1945, and that's because a peace treaty with Japan had not been concluded. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The term "province" is the most controversial one, I would say. Chinese territory? Yes, Taiwan was governed by China historically. But for a territory to be a full-fledged "province" rather than just a frontier region, that would require some degree of infrastructural development and cultural evolution. It's generally not controversial that Taiwan was once ruled by China, but the idea that Taiwan has historically been a core region of China, as the term "province" implies, is highly controversial. | As for Taiwan being "renegade", well, that's an inaccurate assessment of the historical situation given that Taiwan has never seceded from China nor officially declared independence from China; the group most responsible for Taiwan's initial "splitting away" from China is actually the KMT, the former government of China, and not the Taiwanese people. In recent decades, the primary group advocating for independence has indeed been the Taiwanese people, while the KMT seeks unification with China (under the ROC or an alternative democratic Chinese government). Still, the Taiwanese people are not exactly seceding from "China" in the sense of the PRC; rather, they are seceding from the ROC, a Chinese government-in-exile that has been occupying Taiwan for the past 70 years. | So, whichever way you look at it, it is inaccurate to describe Taiwan as a "Chinese renegade province". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

As a counter-example, if Fujian Province were to secede from China tomorrow, then we could readily call that a "Chinese renegade province". It's happened several times throughout China's history already, though typically not under a Fujianese nationalistic banner and instead under some kind of cult or ideology. Fujian has been a province of China for hundreds of years (I believe over one thousand at least), and it has pretty much continuously held this status for as long as anyone can remember. On the other hand, Taiwan has never held such a prestigious status in Chinese society (up until recently); Taiwan was acquired by China in 1683, ceded to Japan in 1895, and it has never truly been a part of China since then (it was briefly ruled by the ROC from 1945 to 1949, but the Chinese Civil War was occurring at that time, so I doubt that much development or integration occurred at that time). Taiwan is certainly important to China in the present day, but mainly for what it's not rather than for what it is. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

A quick reminder to everyone that talk pages are not forums. This entire discussion so far is a collection of comments debating the status of Taiwan and not a set of proposed changes to the article based on Wikipedia's policies. Also the user who started this discussion, Disclaimer777cc, is obviously a throwaway account. Don't feed the trolls. CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

Change the first sentence: "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia. It shares maritime borders with the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south." to:

"Taiwan, is a country in East Asia. It shares maritime borders with the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south."

Taiwan is an autonomous country as of now and is of much debate between the Quad alliance (). The Taiwanese government has not accepted the colonization the CCP is attempting (). The Taiwanese Government views ROC as a threat, and is not a part of it.

As someone who has been in academia for well over a decade, it is truly disheartening to see a huge name like Wikipedia spreading around false information on truly sensitive topics that majorly affect the world. If Wikipedia chooses to keep this false propaganda up and running in its database, supported by the CCP, I refuse to use this source as a credible source for all of my academic journey. My user email belongs to the largest public university in New York state, and I shall never again treat Wikipedia as a factually correct and non-biased source of information when using my privileges of being part of a huge university, if such a problematic statement on Taiwan were to persist on this website. TowardsAutonomy (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: ROC and PRC are two different republics of China. It's explained in detail in the article body. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

TowardsAutonomy. You seem to be objecting to the term "Republic of China" but that is the term that the government of Taiwan uses to describe itself. It is certainly not a term that the CCP uses, since they call the Taiwan government the "Taipei authorities". Can you please clarify the basis of your objection? Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

TowardsAutonomy You may well indeed be better off not using Wikipedia as a factually correct and credible source of information, certainly in the realm of academics, however, "Republic of China" is plastered all over Taiwanese government sites. Regardless of your personal objections, which are irrelevant, the facts are as they stand..--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

References

you're "huge" in academia but can't even distinguish between ROC and PRC? jfc Gabe2011 (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The precedence of Taiwan's status, consensus and more

Why is Taiwan a "country in East Asia", while Kosovo a "partially recognised state in Southeast Europe", Palestine a "de jure sovereign state in Western Asia" and Northern Cyprus a "a de facto state"?

I vividly recall Taiwan being the same situation, being called a state for years, but somehow became a "country" around 2019-2020. What exactly gives Taiwan precedence as being called a "country" over all the other partially recognised states?

Sure, one could exert their political opinions, but per states with limited recognition, Taiwan (14) scores significantly lower than Palestine (138) and even Kosovo (97), one that came into existence only in 2008. Palestine also holds observer status in the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organisation (WHO), something Taiwan does not. (not invited since 2016 in the case of the WHO).

So what exactly is going on here? why was there a sudden, recent consensus to consider Taiwan a country? Specifically, was this influenced by recent geopolitical factors, which affects the neutrality of Wikipedia as a whole? The Palestine situation is arguably just as politically tense as Taiwan, if not more, due to the fact that Palestine/Israel is a much more violent place than Taiwan/China with active warfare, and yet, Palestine is still not called a "country" on Wikipedia.

I'm hoping for a neutral, rational response to this. Thanks. Peter Tatum (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very poor at handling controversial topics in social sciences and history. A small number of editors believe the article should say Taiwan has always been a separate country, has never been recognized as part of China and has a right to self-determination while the PRC is an aggressor seeking to illegally annex it. Not enough neutral editors have the expertise, time or interest to improve the article. TFD (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The status of Taiwan is complicated. The decision to go with “country” was made at Talk:Taiwan/Archive 30#RfC:Taiwan, "country" or "state". It is necessary that you read country to understand tha vagaries of the word. Country does not mean “nation” or “state”, de facto or independent. It is an old word that means “land”, opposite, referred to from elsewhere. “Country” has more connection to the land than to the people on it. If all people were to go extinct, there could be no nations, but the country would remain. Referring to “Taiwan as a country” is not terribly different to referring to “Taiwan as an island” or “Taiwan is a place”, but “country” does suggest a connected people, people who could be identified as culturally defined in avoiding politics.

I have noted earlier that “country” is poorly translated into Chinese. Nobody uses the word “country” when they mean “nation” or “state”, it is not that kind of word. The use of country is an avoidance of politics in the description. The lead sentence and paragraph attempts a simple description. Like for an alien descending from space, or a mariner arriving without prior knowledge. If it’s the politics you want, it’s the fourth paragraph, and the fourth paragraph cannot be squeezed into the first sentence of the first paragraph without destroying the purpose and flow of the first paragraph. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

When words can have more than one meaning, we should keep in mind which one readers will assume we mean. This is clearly a rebuttal of the PRC's claim (recognized by most of the world) that China is one country. In fact that is also the official position of the ROC. Their disagreement with the PRC is who should control the country. Instead we are treating as fact an unofficial position used by the governing Democratic Progressive Party. TFD (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The Chinese do not seem to understand the nuance of “country”, specifically it’s use where the writer could have used “nation” or “state” but does not. The frequency of the term “independent country” implies clearly that “country” does not imply “independent”. In a sense the “Chinese one country” phrase is silly, like insisting that Northern Ireland and Wales are the same country. However, that phrase is not the policy. I think what they really want to mean is “The Chinese are one people”. I note the zh.Wikipedia.org article “One China” translates to something far more detailed and not using the word “country”. The problem is with Chinese non-native-English speakers limited appreciation of the word “country”, and google translate treating “country” and “nation” as the same word in Chinese. We have a whole article that explains “country” well enough. It does not conflict with the One-China policy article, which does not use the word “country” until it comes to a link to One Country on Each Side.

The DPP’s use of ambiguous English words does not change the meaning of old English words.

You raise the issue of readers reading the words and how they might interpret different to an old English linguist. This is valid. Given the past RfC, it should not be changed easily without wide input, but, noting the intention to keep politics out of paragraph 1, would one fo the following be acceptable to more people?

• “Taiwan … is a [what] in East Asia”?
• “Taiwan is a land in East Asia” no ghits
• “Taiwan is an island in East Asia” 8600 ghits
• “Taiwan is a large island in Asia” no ghits

Note that “country” scored well in the RfC from data on real world usage. Wikipedia doesn’t make this stuff up. Wikipedia follows its sources. Wikipedia doesn’t lead. “Country” is common used, and it’s nuanced imprecise meaning is correct. However, “Taiwan is not a country” having 384000 ghits is good evidence that the lede wording is controversial. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The last comment is the most relevant one. Wikipedia goes by RS. Many RS avoid attaching a political label to Taiwan at all, but of the ones that do, most use "country". No one here should be even attempting to analyze treaties, et cetera that haven't been interpreted through RS -- that is WP:OR. DrIdiot (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, I want to say pre-emptively I am not interested in relitigating this issue. Merely attempting to explain the result of and reasonoing behind the RfC. DrIdiot (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The comparison of the sovereignty of the ROC to other partially recognised states is silly... The sovereign state of the ROC has ever established long before the foundation of the United Nations in 1946, and some ramdom CCP sypathizers are keen to wave a chicken feather as a token of authority for the repudiation of a sovereign state based on the UN membership? on the numbers of countries with formal relations ? lol

The Montevideo Convention clearly defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. None of them are related to a United Nation membership or diplomatic recognition as a criteria in terms of becoming a sovereign state. Please get your facts straight. 123.192.182.76 (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Besides, the most important conclusion in the present circumstance in particular because there is already a standing consensus on this matter which was settled upon and while this does not 100% bar continued discussion of the matter, it is considered to be potentially problematic to keep re-raising the issue in repeated subsequent threads unless you have a good argument to make under wikipedia policies for why the consensus is incorrect. The argument you are advancing (your own hot take, without reference to a single source) is not a good argument in those terms. Although I am opposed to re-opening this can of worms at present, I can theoretically think of good arguments for why someone might want to change the lead. But yours isn't one of those good arguments (in terms of credible sourses for your reasons), so unless you are going to begin to root your argument more in the sources and the relevant content guidelines, I'd urge you to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this and let the matter go for now. I do personally think that in time the consensus here will probably be re-established around the standard of calling Taiwan a 'state' rather than a 'country', but it's not going to happen by virtue of the arguments you have attempted to advance and the timing you have chosen makes it especially problematic. So let's just let the matter lay for now, improve other sections of the article and perhaps come back around to the 'country' issue in due time 123.192.182.76 (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of international law, the ROC was, in the legal sense, a government that represented the sovereign state of China, but I get your point. However, the ROC underwent the Chinese Civil War, fled the mainland, and is now located on an island over which the territorial sovereignty is disputed, therefore it would be controversial to assert that the ROC is a sovereignty state today. Regarding the Montevideo Convention, apparently the "territory" it refers to needs to be a non-disputed one, which the island of Taiwan is not. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If the word country is "nuanced," i.e., could mean different contradictory things, then we shouldn't use it. It's a dog whistle to Taiwan secessionists which provides plausible deniability if challenged. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, not a progaganda organ.

As for applying the Montevideo Convention and determining that Taiwan is a country, that violates "no synthesis." I shouldn't have to explain why the argument is flawed but first the Convention was referring to states not countries and secondly, the Convention is only one method of determining statehood, none of which are entirely satisfactory. The Convention notably excluded Canada which would not have met the criteria at the time, despite being recognized as a state by the signatories of the treaty.

TFD (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nuanced, but explained both at wikt:country and country, and most importantly, it is well used in quality sources. Is there any source, even bloggy, that use of “country” connected to Taiwan is a Dog whistle (politics)? English has a lot of nuance. English is a dog of a language. We have to use English. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Kosovo is not set up as per the norm for country articles (the result of many RFC). The vast majority simple say country in the opening sentence with political structure in the third paragraph... be at a partially recognized state, independent state, a dictatorship, a monarchy etc.. This is done to simply state a fact in the first sentence with further explanation later but still in the lead. Problem we have is how words are perceived differently by different peoples even English speaking countries. Good example is the UK and Australia that says "sovereign country". To many other English-speaking nations the addition of the qualifier "sovereign" implies it wasn't sovereign before or has recently become sovereign.....that i assume is supposed to have the the opposite intent .Moxy- 02:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The use of “sovereign country” is proof of usage that “country” alone does not imply “sovereign”. It’s left unstated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct and is why most articles have a whole paragraph in the lead about governing.Moxy- 12:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a question for those of you virulently opposing classifying Taiwan as a province of China and unapologetically spreading Sinophobic racism: How exactly is the current consensus held by the vast majority of United Nations members about Taiwan's nationhood status nulled by your own personal interpretation of the Montevideo Convention? Sorry but it doesn't matter what you personally categorize Taiwan as, a nation is only a nation when recognized by its international peers, and Taiwan is not recognized by the vast majority of UN members. This shouldn't be a debate. Lemonwrist (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Lemonwrist

Firstly, I'd advise you to not go around making personal attacks and request you assume good faith. Being upset and going around accusing people of being Sinophobic just because Taiwan's status is not defined on Wikipedia according to PRC policy will not help your cause at all. Perhaps you could also clarify to which "China" are you referring? The ROC or PRC? What would you define the ROC from the years 1949-1971 as? The UN certainly recognised the ROC on Taiwan as China up to the latter date. You're absolutely right: "it doesn't matter what you personally categorize Taiwan as". There is more than one definition of statehood, what makes up a nation, and whilst nobody can say Taiwan or the continuing ROC fits snugly in any one definition, the entry here reflects the reality. --Tærkast (Discuss) 19:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I tend not to assume good faith myself when any slight objection to recognizing Taiwan as a country is met with cantankerous accusations of "being a CCP sympathizer" as though such a position was an unforgivable crime. What about any of this is neutral or based on a worldly perspective? Is it just happenstance that the sudden surge in demand here from editors to recognize Taiwan's status as a country coincides with recent geopolitical pivots in Western nations' posturing towards Taiwan's independence forces? There is clear eurocentrism here. Lemonwrist (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Lemonwrist

If you’re serious about wanting to understand why Taiwan is called a country here, I suggest you start by reading through the RfC that led to this change 19 months ago, which can be found here. Phlar (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've also noted you did not respond to which "China" you are referring? Taiwan has never been controlled by the PRC. The fact that most states recognise the PRC as "China" and Taiwan as a province of that China is already noted in the article. The ROC remains in existence, Taiwan is a de facto state, country, whatever you want to call it, at the very least, regardless of how one feels about it. To present Taiwan unequivocally as a province of PR China is factually incorrect, although PRC constitutional claims and recognition may indicate otherwise. Consensus has been to describe Taiwan as a country, and only consensus can change that. Neither this nor the China article will ever fully satisfy everybody.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to observe NPOV. The standard view is that Taiwan is a country. The other examples that were given (Kosovo, Cyprus etc) were recently formed states that came about through breaking away from other countries. "breakaway states" Taiwan has always been a country, as the Government of it was the Govt of the all of China, and recognised as such....and then relocated to Taiwan. Historically, the Communist Government never ruled Taiwan. If Wikipedia was to take a view that Taiwan wasn't a country, then that would be adopting a non neutral stance. As for Lemonwrist throwing around allegations of racism to the editors here, that's no way to gain sympathy with your viewpoint, and as has been said, you should read not go around making personal attacksDeathlibrarian (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I admit that defining a country based on UN recognition alone is far too narrow of a definition, and while Taipei's governance may be functionally separate from the mainland's, it comes across dishonest to brand Taiwan simply and categorically as "a country in East Asia". It gives a disingenuous first impression that runs counter to the consensus of much of the Chinese diaspora, as well as the largest political party on earth by membership count (CPC) who consider Taiwan an inalienable part of the PRC. Does this consensus not warrant at least modifying the summary to accurately reflect the reality of Taiwan's status as a point of considerable dispute and not decisively "a country", regardless of Taipei's functionally separate governance? The label of Taiwan as a "country" does not observe a neutral point of view. 03:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Lemonwrist

By the "consensus of much of the Chinese diaspora", as well as "the largest political party on earth by membership count (CPC) who consider Taiwan an inalienable part of the PRC." Mate, The current consensus is built by general approval which taking account of every parties or opinions involved, and you just indicated that you have already taken a political side which does not refer to a "neutral point of view" by any means. LVTW2 (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't indicating my taking of a political side. Regardless of how you feel about the CPC, Taiwan's status is obviously a point of great dispute and therefore it's not neutral language to decisively designate Taiwan as a "country", as though it was not extremely contentious and partial to only one party to do so (which it is). Lemonwrist (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Lemonwrist

Taiwan's status already has its own article and is discussed sufficiently here, I would say, to provide the PRC's point of view of Taiwan being a part of the PRC. Even if you were to survey every person in the Chinese diaspora and the CPC, that would still only reflect their point of view. The introduction as it stands reflects Taiwan's de facto status as a country, if not de jure based on the continuity of the ROC. This is one of those articles that will likely never satisfy either side, so it is what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaerkastUA (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Kosovo is a brand new nation that was only able to declare independence in 2008. As a result, its situation is much more chaotic and unpredictable with little historical backing and solidification. Its status beforehand was simply an Autonomous Region within Serbia. Therefore, to be able to adapt to change and to keep a neutral point of view about a very current event, it is best to call it a partially recognized state. Palestine is a nation whose territory has been rapidly shrinking for decades because of encroachment from Israel and other reasons. They have even lost their capital of Jeruselum. However, they still have a large amount of recognition from the world. This makes them a De Jure state with a largely recognized government but, no control over their lands. Northern Cyprus is a nation that was birthed from Cyprus's independence from the British Empire and the split afterward. Only Turkey recognized Northern Cyprus. Every other nation either refuses to comment or explicitly does not recognize Northern Cyprus. However, with the assistance of Turkey, it is still able to both defend and control all its lands. Thus, making Northern Cyprus only a De Facto State. Taiwan shares none of these problems. Taiwan is not a new state with a lack of history like Kosovo. Its official name is the "Republic of China" as it is the first republican government to ever preside over China. It was recognized as the undisputed government of China from the early 1900s until 1949. Taiwan is a direct continuation of this government (IE: The same government). While it has lost its UN seat and many nations claim to not recognize it, this is only to appease the PRC. For all practical terms, most nations (including the United States, the only remaining superpower) unofficially recognize and officially support Taiwan. With this large recognition, it becomes a De Jure state. Also since 1949, when the Republic of China fled to Taiwan, they have had no problems defending the island, especially with the United States on their side. There has been no point in world history where the PRC ever administered its control over Taiwan. This makes Taiwan a De Facto State. Taiwan being a De Facto and De Jure State with serious history, it would simply be natural, objective, and neutral to rightly label Taiwan as a country. It meets the standards held by most people for being a country. In fact, it would be non-neutral to state Taiwan is not a country. There are only two arguments for referring to Taiwan as less than a country. One of them is following the PRC's and its close allies' stance on the matter, which is the opposite of objective. The other argument is the UN argument (Taiwan no longer has a seat). While the UN argument is far more objective, it still has the severe flaw of being too narrow. It is too vulnerable to the petty politics of the major players in the UN. A perfect example of this is the historical status of the PRC itself. Even though the PRC was officially founded in 1949, acting as a major independent nation, playing a significant role in major wars such as the Korean War and much more, it was only given a seat at the UN in 1971. As most know, the only reason this is the case is because of American politics/influence and Chiang Kai-shek's requirement that all nations who recognize the ROC, also recognize it as the sole legitimate government over all of China. While most objective and logical people today would say that the PRC has been a country since 1949, those who state Taiwan is not a country due to its UN status would have to also say that the PRC was not a real country until 1971. This is clearly preposterous and highlights the issue with the UN argument. This paragraph has been my view on the issue and largely a direct response to Tatum falsely stating Taiwan's status to be equivalent to that of Kosovo's, Northern Cyprus' and Palestine's. While I stand by my arguments, I admit they are disorganized and unsourced. To have a better understanding of Wikipedia's consensus on calling Taiwan a country, I recommend reviewing their RfC linked at the top of the page. Nathanzachary56 (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Try this on for size. how many people support the Confederacy? how many recognize the Confederacy as a true state or country, in opposition or separate from the Union? if we all passed American history, we recall that the Union did not consider the breakaway Confederacy as a separate entity, but as a rogue faction creating a treasonous govt. and that seems to be the most accurate and prevailing position.

and then, what happened next? the Confederacy fell, and was taken back, or reintegrated, in to the Union. with many foreign nations trading and forming pacts with the Confederacy. The Confederacy considered themselves an entirely separate country/nation with a legitimate govt.

My point is, if you consider the Confederacy as a break away, rogue nation, yet don't put Taiwan in that same category, then you are either a duped propaganda shill, or so mentally incompetent that you cannot take two exact same scenarios and apply them objectively and equally.

the KMT fled the mainland and practically colonized the natives on the island of Taiwan. if your argument is that Taiwan, before and without the KMT, I'd a country, you might have an valid position. if you think the island of Taiwan, with the KMT, is either a separate country from the PRC, or the true legitimate govt of China, then you need to take high school history and pass this time, because there is no way you can hold that opinion in any sort of objective, materialist sense. Gabe2011 (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nathan's comment is about as close to a shill as you could get. somehow the PRCs position is subjective but the US, who has a history of attempted destabilizing all over the F planet, is somehow the shining example of objectivity? are you serious? The fact that the PRC doesn't nuke Taiwan doesn't mean that Taiwan is a de facto state, or that somehow its govt is legitimate. Fortunately, the Chinese doesn't believe is genociding an entire land just because of territorial disputes. unlike Americans.

and point of contention. in what universe is the US the world's only Superpower? are you stuck in the 90s? China just discovered 6G. the US has even fully made its own country 5G. China makes its own artificial sun, sending machines to the moon, and the only positive GDP growth in 2020, while every major nation in the world has a negative GDP during the pandemic. next time, don't speak if you're ignorant of the topic you're discussing. Or ask your handler for more community College courses for world history and politics bc clearly, you don't know either. Gabe2011 (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I barely understand your long and illogical comments which just gave me a hard reading... what's your point here exactly?? Confederate states of America was a breakaway state as you said, but the ROC aka Taiwan was never "breakaway" from the communist China, it has been a sovereign state even before the current Beijing regime was born, simple as such. LVTW2 (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The territorial sovereignty over the island of Taiwan is still in dispute due to complicated historical, political, and legal reasons; while the Confederacy did not have such an issue. So I think the latter is not comparable to the former.

By claiming that the PRC is "the only positive GDP growth in 2020", whose data are you based on? If it's the PRC's own data, I think that's questionable. There has been many cases that the PRC government were accused of using modified/deceptive data to fool both the Chinese people and all other people around the world. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

2008 telephone call

I've noticed that two users are having a small edit war over some historical events.

As a compromise I think it's fine to leave in the 2005 visit between the KMT and CCP, but the 2008 telephone call between Hu and Bush is not really relevant to this article. Nothing important occured as a result, and the text in question only puts forward Hu's views. Hu is no longer the leader of China and events have moved on quite a lot. The text might be relevant in an article focused on the PRC's views on Taiwan or Taiwan's political status, but not this general article on Taiwan itself, not least because the article already contains a summary of China's views on Taiwan's status. John Smith's (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I just saw this after making edits where a lot of the quote has been cut out. It's not about the phone call per se but Hu/China's condition on the basis of any dialogue between the two sides (at least when the ties were just normalizing but probably still valid now), which is notable for the subsection on Taiwan-PRC relationship and not mentioned elsewhere in the article. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It might have been relevant at the time the telephone call took place, but Hu isn't leader now and hasn't been for a long time. Comments made by past leaders don't bind the Standing Committee today. John Smith's (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this covered in great detail e.g. in discussion of 1992 consensus? I'm not sure Hu's thoughts on the matter are of particular importance; it *is* stated in the article that PRC considers 1Cprinciple to be condition for talks. DrIdiot (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The 2005 visit etc had been there for a long time and nothing to do with recent edits, except Horse appeared to have removed a part of it by accident. He had issues only with my sources, but each time I added a new source such as US White House or FT he doesn't think they're RS enough; it wasn't an edit war over content. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@WikiwiLimeli: I didn't remove *any* of it in that diff, please retract. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You removed "}}</ref> the first meeting between the leaders of the two parties since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949" from the sentence on 2005 visit. It's clearly in the diff. Just check what people are pointing out for once instead of always doubling down on your assumptions. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Look again, it wasn't actually removed. This is pretty basic wikipedia stuff, not really sure how you could in good faith think that I removed anything from there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason I'm giving you a second chance to look at this is exactly because I'm acting in good faith. I don't require that you own up to your mistake or whatever it was, but you don't need to lie about it either. 06:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiwiLimeli (talk • contribs)

Then you're being daft, go ask any noticeboard or editor you like about that edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Not taking a side in this argument, but objectively speaking, after your edit, the first sentence of that paragraph read:

On 29 April 2005, Kuomintang Chairman Lien Chan travelled to Beijing and met with Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Hu Jintao, On 11 February 2014, Mainland Affairs Council head Wang Yu-chi travelled to Nanjing and met with Taiwan Affairs Office head Zhang Zhijun, the first meeting between high-ranking officials from either side.

There's clearly something wrong with the sentence as you left it. Looks to me like you did delete some text between "Hu Jintao" and "On”. Just pointing this out because I'm getting tired of the bickering. Phlar (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Phlar: That I removed that text has never been in question, its ""}}</ref>" and only ""}}</ref>" thats under question. As an experienced wikipedia editor I assume you realize thats just how it looks when both the beginning and the end of a cut section end with citations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You didn’t remove "}}</ref>" but you removed "the first meeting between the leaders of the two parties since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949" and broke the sentence. Isn’t that the point? Phlar (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiwiLimeli genuinely seems to believe that I removed ""}}</ref>" at the beginning. I don't contest that I removed "the first meeting between the leaders of the two parties since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949" as its described in the edit summary, the given sources aren't WP:RS (nor do they strictly support it). I should however have changed that comma to a period, perhaps that is were the confusion is coming from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, denying the removal of "the first meeting between the leaders of the two parties since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949" is exactly what you were doing. These were your exact words and request: I didn't remove *any* of it in that diff, please retract back on 7 January. At the time, "}}</ref>" had not even come up. Horse, you might have a lot more time than other editors, but not everyone can play along with you and still have time left to make edits. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying "the first meeting between the leaders of the two parties since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949" doesn't have a WP:RS and needs one? Phlar (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It was sourced to [17] and [18]. But neither is a WP:RS and as far as I can ascertain neither actually says that. Is it supposed to be sourced to something else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

2005 Pan–Blue visits to mainland China lists some sources that support the "first meeting between leaders" claim. The Guardian also might do. Phlar (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good, I have no objection to it being added with a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree w/ John Smith. The phone call might be WP:UNDUE. Unclear its importance. Visit makes sense. Though I think in the "relationship with PRC" section should have some text about 92 consensus, which it surprisingly does not. DrIdiot (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If the text is at the point where it has opinions that need to be dated and attributed, it's probably undue for this page. CMD (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

2005 is fine, not convinced that 2008 is due (especially not in the cherrypicked, poorly sourced, and POV pushing form it currently takes). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Won't argue whether due or not, but US NSA / FT are poor / cherrypicked sources pushing POV for the PRC? Whatever you want to believe in. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan should not be said as country

Taiwan is not a country according to most of the UN Members, and thus it should be said in the article that it is a de facto independent province of China. This is because only 15 UN members do not recognize the PRC and only 14 members and the Vatican recognize the ROC Instead. Thus because this is very controversial I decided not to do edit the page but rather try to make a new consensus. Thanks. Jishiboka1 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, how many recognize ROC (officially) as part of the PRC?Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The UN is an important organization, but it doesn't get to determine the meanings of English words.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

China likewise does not get to dictate that either. Just saying, it's an important country just like the UN is an important organization. This should also be helpful [[19]] Unbroken Chain (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"it is a de facto independent province of China." well that is a unique mix of takes which is held by *none* of the parties to this dispute. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Here it comes again, it has been a routine in past two years at least twice a month after the consensus was reached as someone would keep bringing the same settled content issue back to sight again with moaning and groaning... Well, I will just hereby wish you a positive result of your struggle, chairman Xi would better appreciate your effort~ good luck lol LVTW2 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please remember wp:soap and wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Jishiboka1, I agree with you. Wikipedia articles should not take sides, but should reflect what mainstream sources say. TFD (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Mainstream sources do say that the status of Taiwan is disputed. No sources definitively describe Taiwan as a province of [the People's Republic of] China. Almost every article which you can come across says something to the effect of Taiwan being self-governed but claimed by the PRC, some even point out that the PRC has never controlled it. There is no pleasing everybody, but it reflects the de facto reality of the situation. To simply dismiss the ROC's (what little) recognition and go full province description would not adhere to NPOV nor reflect the reality. As it currently stands, the status is already discussed enough in the article. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A neutral description and one that both the Mainland and Taiwanese government perhaps until recently would agree with is that it is part of the country of China controlled by the government of the Republic of China (ROC). The ROC government had in fact fled to Taiwan after its defeat by the People's Republic of China in a civil war. While there is an indigenous population, the vast majority of the people descend from Chinese immigrants. TFD (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Fail to see how ethnicity is relevant in using the word "country". Also, we go by RS to determine neutrality, not editor opinions. DrIdiot (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see where anyone has mentioned ethnicity. TFD (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to point it out for you:"While there is an indigenous population, the vast majority of the people descend from Chinese immigrants." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus was already established in 2020 with overwhelming support for the continued used of "country". If a user wants to restart the discussion in hopes of gathering a new consensus, their initial argument should be based on Wikipedia policy, which Jishiboka1's is not. Wikipedia is based on verifiability through reliable sources; the word of governments or governmental organisations are not the final say, as civil society exists and reliable sources tend to reflect the input of both. Unless a policy-based proposal is raised, this discussion will be pointless and an opportunity for trolls to disrupt the talk page again. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

RfCs frequently go against Wikipedia policy in these types of articles. TFD (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The RfC in 2020 was based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS. My other point still stands: The official positions of governments are not the end all be all that everyone (including Wikipedia) has to follow, and it is not the policy of this website to repeat the de jure stances of governments as fact, especially if reliable sources describe the stances with nuance (i.e. as de jure positions). CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Status controversy

I hesitate to bring this up but perhaps it's time for ARBCOM to step in and impose a restriction on modifying Taiwan/the ROC's status as a country.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

ARBCOM isn't there to decide content disputes. TFD (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It is and has when the content and subject matter are controversial enough that restrictions are warranted and leads to conduct issues, i.e. Ireland's name, Palestine-Israel, American politics, to name but a few and for some tiresome reason, this might need to be included in the scope. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose they do in "exceptional" cases. Bear in mind the procedure they outlined for determining which version to accept. I would be fine with this, would you? TFD (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I just think this article could do with a bit of stability. General broad consensus was reached regarding its classification as a country in 2020. There is no classification which could appease everybody. Perhaps one day. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My personal point of view is, it is impossible to satisfy any group regardless of whatever the change would be. The controversy of the title name in use, the current political status, and the phrase to be use in description, all have been heavily discussed in several occassion since this article was born; I personally accept the impression of country status as "country with limited recognition" or "sovereign state with limited recognition" which may reach a mutual understanding in accordance with common facts. Based on two factors:
1. Taiwan aka the ROC is never a "breakaway state" or "renegade Province" as the communist China favour to use, which constitutionally regarded itself as a continuation of the former Chinese Republic that was never ceased to exist, but the cultural and political aspects of the state is now distinct comparing to the pre-1949 regime. Similar to Byzantine Empire, despite the fact that the polity can be viewed as a continuation of Eastern portion of Roman Empire, but nowadays people including scholars cease to treat them as the same due to social and political distingushment, hence there is no problem for saying that the ROC on Taiwan is a country in its own right in any aspect.

2. Taiwan lacks diplomatic recognition which is not deniable, so I personally accept that the "limited recognition" to be added on the description because the circumstance of the One-China policy imposed by the PRC in order to marginalise Taipei on the world stage and place it as an essential prerequisite when establishing relations with any country, simply described as a current situation ongoing. Nevertheless, I do not agree that some editors keen on using such an excuse (limited diplomatic recognition, or no membership in the UN) to deny the legitimacy of Taiwan as a "country", due to the fact that the quantity of diplomatic recognition does not form any critical element to the definition of statehood for being regarded as a country based on both declarative theory of statehood and constitutive theory of statehood in international law. (see sovereign state) Also because those excuses were the consequences of the longstanding diplomatic struggle, not the causation about why it's "not being a country", correlation does not imply causation, you can't take the effect and make it the cause. Besides I do not see any critical difference if you compare the case of Two Chinas along with Two Koreas, of which they're both depicted as "countries" as well. LVTW2 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

If there is disagreement in reliable sources, we are not supposed to evaluate the arguments and determine which to accept, but to report that disagreement exists. TFD (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

RE: “renegade province”. That is PRC Point of view (POV) and is sufficiently covered in the last paragraph of Political status of Taiwan#Position of the People's Republic of China (PRC). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We should upgrade the sources for this fact...Moxy- 03:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Donald S. Zagoria (30 October 2003). Breaking the China-Taiwan Impasse. ABC-CLIO. pp. 68–. ISBN 978-0-313-05755-7. OCLC 1058389524.
• P. Chow (28 April 2008). The "One China" Dilemma. Springer. pp. 7–. ISBN 978-0-230-61193-1. OCLC 1005776970.
• Shu-mei Shih; Ping-hui Liao, eds. (17 October 2014). Comparatizing Taiwan. Routledge. pp. 287–. ISBN 978-1-317-67784-0.

I agree we cannot satisfy both sides, and its not our job to pick which side, so I would argue if both sides are unhappy that means we have what we should have, blance.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan is NOT a country, 178 recognize the PRC as the ruler of China AND Taiwan while only 14 recognize the ROC as the legitimate ruler of China. Bhutan on the other hand says that neither are legitimate. Taiwan is a part of China, even according to the UK, US, South Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and pretty much every single country with a population over 100 million (Taiwan is not even CLOSE to 100 mil population) Jishiboka1 (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Just look up my leaving comments above, don't play nasty and keep on going in circles with the same deficient reason. LVTW2 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Second this. Jishiboka1 Your emotions won't help sway anyone and editing against attempted consensus will certainly not work in your favour either. See the top of this talk page. The statement you made re the 178 and the PRC ruling both the mainland and Taiwan is factually incorrect, but I digress. "Part of China"? Which one?. See this could go on. Slatersteven said it best with his statement above, and I am quite inclined to agree as I have done. Seriously, I'm honestly surprised this hasn't been brought before Arbcom until now.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Better phrased as "178 countries pay lip service to China's claims while effectively treating Taiwan as an independent country, while 14 countries pay lip service to Taiwan's claims while effectively treating China as an independent country". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

A guess is that objectors to "country" are not native English speakers. Read "country" and understand the the difference to nation and state. "Country" is a quite loosely defined word that actually connects to the land more than the people, and less the politics. If there were no people, the country would still be the country. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The US does not recognize that Taiwan is part of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Goverments of countries are not good sources for whether Taiwan is a country, because they have a conflict of interest. China uses economic coerction to force other countries not to recognize Taiwan as a country.--2603:8080:1300:664B:B9C9:EA38:2BB4:BF0B (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC - Should it be mentioned that Taiwan is a province of China in the lede and/or in the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As it says at the top of the article Changes to the article to refer to Taiwan as a state, island, province of China, or other definition are not permitted and may be reverted. This is per this previous RfC. ––FormalDude talk 05:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should the political status of the territory of Taiwan as a province of China, which is the ROC's, PRC's, and US's official position, and as far as I know not questioned by any other state, be mentioned in the lede, perhaps in the first paragraph, and described in the article (It is currently not described as a province anywhere in this article)? ( In the Joint Communique, the United States recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm ) There are currently 2 articles Taiwan Province and Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, should they be linked to from this article? There was a previous RFC RFC Talk:Taiwan/Archive_30#RfC:_Taiwan,_"country"_or_"state" which did not address this issue, but for some reason there is an info box on this page banning reference to Taiwan as a province based on that RFC. Should that info box be changed? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 12:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

We do mention that the PRC claims Tawain, I am unsure we need more than that. Also this RFC is badly formed (read wp:RFC please). Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The political status is mentioned. There's an entire paragraph dedicated to it in the lead, and a dedicated body section. Neither of the Taiwan provinces are coterminous with the article topic, and it would be incorrect to present them as such. CMD (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Invited by the bot. I see no specific RFC question here. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I can simplify the question - should it be mentioned in the article that Taiwan is a province of China? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 14:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis it ay be true that neither of the Taiwan provinces are coterminous with the article topic, but how does it follow that they should not be linked to or mentioned in the article? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 14:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

One is already linked/mentioned, and as for the other one I don't see anywhere it would add much value in this article that is already far too long. CMD (talk)

Comment and request for speedy close The way this RfC is worded supposes that Taiwan is definitely a province of the PRC, which does not adhere to WP:NPOV. The status of all claimants is already discussed in the article and as Slatersteven said, the best position we can be in is accept our consensus and please nobody. I seriously think it's time for Arbcom to step in.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how it breaches NPOV to say that both PRC and ROC say that Taiwan is a province of China. The United Nations also take that position, however no where in the article is the word "province" currently used. Who disputes that Taiwan is, among other things, a province of China? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 18:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You did not read wp:RFC did you? "Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?"" you did not do this. "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp.", you did not do this. Thus this RFC fails to be neutrally worded.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't how making a simple statement of provable fact can not be NPOV. Who exactly disputes that Taiwan is a province of China? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 18:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The Taiwanese for a start, depending on which coalition you align with. And you haven't exactly denied that the way you wish to have it worded implies strongly that it would be a province of the PRC, which by the way has never controlled Taiwan. As I've said before, the article already references the various viewpoints of the parties without making any definitive statement, which is the best way it can be put, in other words, pleasing nobody is the most neutral way of stating things. --Tærkast (Discuss) 18:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Both coalitions would actually dispute that statement, even for the pan-blue side Taiwan province =/= Taiwan or ROC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This RFC needs to be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please can you help me compose a better RFC, if this one is confusing. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 19:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@L'Origine du monde: You have started this RFC too soon. First, you need to discuss the issue with other users on this talk page. If there is no consensus---e.g. if many editors feel one way, and many other editors feel a different way---then you could start an RFC to attract additional editors to the discussion, and to help resolve the dispute. But you did not complete the first step (discussing with other editors on this Talk page) before you opened this RFC.

Please see WP:RFCBEFORE:

• Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page.
• Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. Phlar (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

On what basis would they dispute that Taiwan is currently a province of China, and do you have a source for that? If both Chinese governments, the United Nations, and almost all the world's governments recognise Taiwan as a province of China doesn't NPOV require that this at least be mentioned in the article? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"If both Chinese governments, the United Nations, and almost all the world's governments recognise Taiwan as a province of China" thats not true though... Your argument is circular and based on a false pretense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

All you shoud ask is "should we say in the lede "Tawain is a province of China"".Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven but if I was to write that I think that people would assume that China meant PRC, rather than ROC. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 19:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That is why you need to figure out how to word it based unpon that, as I do not know what you want to ask.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Horse_Eye's_Back I don't understand what you think is false. Who doesn't recognise Taiwan as a province of one or other China? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 19:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all *nobody* recognizes Taiwan as a province of the ROC... Thats just you getting Taiwan and Taiwan Province confused, they don't cover the same geographic area and Taiwan/ROC is made up of multiple provinces (although they are somewhat of an archaic holdover and have been largely phased out of use). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven I would like the article to make it clear that Taiwan is a province of the ROC that is claimed as a province by the PRC. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 19:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That is far too complex an issue for the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Horse_Eye's_Back am I wrong to think that both the PRC and the UN refer to Taiwan as a province? What exactly do those countries that recognise the ROC recognise Taiwan as, if not a province of the ROC? How many provinces are there in the ROC? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 20:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The ROC and Taiwan are two different named for the same political entity (it is even sometimes rendered as Republic of China (Taiwan) by the current government). This is not a page for general discussion of the topic, if you don't already know these very basic things that might I suggest that you don't have the relevant competence to be suggesting changes to the lead? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Please remember WP:NOPA. Everyone is entitled and welcome to suggest any changes they like, regardless of experience, background or "competence." Phlar (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

:@User:L'Origine du monde

May I ask you a straightforward question... what proposal of your version of Taiwan's introduction should be looked like? We need a clear direction of your suggestion by you to provide the suggesting version of the leading article for everyone to re-evaluate and determine the necessary output. This is not a discussion forum or journal-tribune, nobody has time to listen to your tedious theory, the talk page is used to compile a constructive contribution through discussion. As I've read through all your comments above, I still don't get what the exact rewording of the lead you really wish to achieve, but you just kept utilizing the same cliché for people to do the job for you. This is not our job, please be clear about it and give constructive feedback.LVTW2 (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:LVTW2 I think that the article should mention that Taiwan is considered a province of China at least once in the article. For some reason that I do not understand it currently doesn't say that anywhere, despite it frequently appearing in many reliable sources that the PRC claims that.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 02:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@User:L'Origine du monde

You still haven't got what I said... I mean the suggesting change in which part of the sentence, and in what way? don't just throw out an idea that the PRC constantly says so, of cource we know that. The stance of the PRC claim over Taiwan has been mentioned in the lead article already, and cost an entire paragraph to elaborate so I do not understand it either for you to say that "currently doesn't say that anywhere". But you need to provide your version of edit if you think it is not enough, I just saw you to keep saying the same cliché that every editors are awared, but what is your constructive move of edits that you would expect to achieve? LVTW2 (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"China" is an ambiguous term. In your suggested change, what is the definition of "China" you are thinking about?93.170.122.22 (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@L'Origine du monde: The US does not recognize that Taiwan is a province of China. Instead, it considers the status of Taiwan an unsettled issue. By the way, the US also does not recognize the "Republic of China" as a state or government. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2022 (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.

Incorrect labeling

Taiwan is not the Republic of China but an independent country governed by itself 2600:387:0:504:0:0:0:C (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BSMRD (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems that this person is confused because he did not understand the difference between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. There were multiple similar confusions in the past (Talk:Taiwan/Archive_34). Can we think of some way to rephrase the lead to make it easier to understand? There is nothing wrong with the current description, but being correct is probably not enough. It would be great to have some extra clarification to make sure all readers will not misunderstand, as the ROC name is very counterintuitive. --103.133.24.74 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right about the confusion, but the first two sentences of the lead distinguish the ROC from the PRC. No amount of clarification will help people who won't read. Kanguole 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually the “Republic of China” is the official title of the national government of Taiwan, “Taiwan” is merely remained as a geographical term to refer to the island that extended to be use colloquially to the country. Similar to Great Britain, despite the fact that the Great Britain refers to only the main island, which is also commonly used to refer to the entire United Kingdom. LVTW2 (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

it needs a section on maritime borders

The article needs a body section on the "maritime borders" and/or a prominent {{see also}} link to a full article on this if one already exists. Because this topic keeps showing up in the lead, but it is too complicated to cover properly there and any summary succinct enough for the lead would end up over simplified to the point of being misleading.

The "maritime borders" version of the location description [20] has reappeared after discussion above about why this was not the best way to describe it.

Also some other material added by @WikiwiLimeli: got removed from the lead by @Kanguole: because "this is indeed undue emphasis, expecially for the lead", which is probably right, but this topic might belong elsewhere.

Tangents like that wouldn't end up in the lead if we delayed bringing up the maritime borders issue until later in the article. There is no need to bring up maritime borders so soon when there are much simpler ways to describe the location.

Irtapil (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll come back to other points but regarding the diff above you linked, I was rephrasing an edit originally added by Alpinespace. I was actually leaning toward removing that edit (reason in edit summary), so it's fine that Kanguole later did. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The current intro would be okay for the main island of Taiwan but not completely accurate for the entire ROC due to its possessions in the south China Sea, which are somewhat west of the Philippines, east of Vietnam, and north of Malaysia as well as Indonesia. We can say the main island is between PRC, Japan, and Philippines or something to that effect. Then add a bit more in the Geography section about outlying islands and disputes (east as well as south China Sea, I believe). WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@WikiwiLimeli: but islands don't have maritime borders, they have coasts? Irtapil (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Coasts aren't borders, an island has both a coast and maritime borders. Why would you think that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I said coasts aren't borders. An island cannot have a maritime border, by definition an island is the bit that isn't in the water. The country Taiwan has more than one island. Even countries that have just one island have a border beyond the coast. Irtapil (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: when i was a little kid i thought all international borders were coasts, because most of my country was on one island … i was confused by the smaller island(s). Irtapil (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Islands have maritime borders... I think you're trying to apply a kindergarten definition to a grad school discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)