Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:41, 28 January 2021

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about "country" vs "state", and "Taiwan" vs "Republic of China", and "Taiwan is a part of China". Please read recent comments before commenting on that topic.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taiwan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Taiwan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Limited recognition High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Misplaced Pages by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands Template:WP1.0

Other talk page banners

Taiwan was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Article milestones Date Process Result August 9, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 13, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed September 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed November 21, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted July 26, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 13, 2009 Good article nominee Listed July 14, 2009 Peer review Reviewed August 16, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 27, 2012 Good article reassessment Delisted Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 10, 2004, and February 28, 2011. Current status: Delisted good article Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. This page is not a forum for general discussion about Taiwan. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Taiwan at the Reference desk. This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Text and/or other creative content from this version of Taiwan was copied or moved into Sports in Taiwan with this edit on 22 October 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. Template:Vital article Guidelines for the article Taiwan The following guidelines have been established by consensus and convention: Simplified Chinese shall remain in the linguistics infobox per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language)#Simplified and Traditional Please do not add Simplified characters and tongyong pinyin to the country infobox. The topic of this article is the Republic of China although its title has been moved to Taiwan. Please refrain from adding "(Taiwan)" indiscriminately because this article includes historical information about the Republic of China as well as Taiwan. To-do list for Taiwan: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2020-11-25 Determine whether Taiwan should be called a 'country' or 'state' Complete: Consensus has been reached for Taiwan to be called a 'country'. The consensus was 33 for country, 10 for state, and 5 for some variation of state. Here is the page on which consensus was reached Improve article based on feature article review Add a short section about the culture and the geography of the ROC territories (with links to the main articles) Review alt text of images Should the role and influence of Sun Yat-sen be introduced in the History section?

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Carl Miller (2019-10-05). "China and Taiwan clash over Misplaced Pages edits". BBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-10-04. Retrieved 2019-10-05. Keoni Everington (2020-06-15). "Misplaced Pages finally designates Taiwan as 'country'". Taiwan News. Retrieved 2020-06-16. In a request for comments (RFC) page created to debate the proper status of Taiwan in its Misplaced Pages entry, editors in May fiercely debated the merits of referring to Taiwan as a "state" or a "country."

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taiwan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Taiwan: Country vs state post-consensus

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Taiwan is a disputed land. Claimed by China as its territory but Taiwanese people claims themselves as separate country and not part of china Joo Chang (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2020 (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. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Joo Chang:, on the off chance that you'll come back and see this, please see the article Political status of Taiwan, which is a quite thorough discussion of the topic. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn, Goldsztajn, and Joo Chang: I agree the article needs some work, but i'm not able to be much more specific than the original request was. I would suggest reordering the information that is already in lead section, which i will try to do myself. The disputed status is already mentioned there, but not till the third paragraph. But it also needs some qualifying statements like "according to (the UN / the Taiwanese government / the PCR)" and possibly more references, this is a bit beyond my expertise. (I also added another discussion topic below.) Irtapil (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There previously was an RFC asking people to decide whether Taiwan should be called "country" or "state". In reality, it should be called neither. It's a disputed territory claimed by both the PRC and ROC. A vote by a bunch of Misplaced Pages authors won't change that. Therefore, if anything, the real question is whether should be considered a SOVEREIGN STATE (it's not) or a PROVINCE of China (it is) https://en.wikipedia.org/Taiwan_Province,_People%27s_Republic_of_China

It should most definitely not be called country, as it is now, as it's highly misleading. It should be clearly marked that the status of Taiwan is highly disputed with the consensus among UN member states being that Taiwan is part of the PRC and that the ROC is an illegitimate government. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@AmericanPropagandaHunter: I don't see problems calling Taiwan a country. According to Collins English Dictionary, a country is "one of the political units which the world is divided into, covering a particular area of land." According to Oxford Learner's Dictionary, a country is "an area of land that has or used to have its own government and laws." Taiwan clearly satisfies these definitions. There are of course other common definitions for a country but I believe none of them put the consensus among UN member states as a necessary condition. Ericpony (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

lead section doesn't reflect official status

I think the lead section needs some major revisions. The information needs to be reordered and rephrased to fit with Misplaced Pages's policy of being unbiased and prioritizing the consensus perspective. I came to this Misplaced Pages page because I am fairly confused about the situation in Taiwan, but - as far as I know from other sources - most countries do not recognise Taiwan as an independent country? Officially it is regarded as a part of China by about 98% of international governments? This is mentioned, but not till the third paragraph. I will try reordering some of the information that is already there, but someone more familiar with the topic probably needs to do some extensive re-phrasing and adding citations, adding "according to" and other qualifying phrases where needed. Irtapil (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You say the lead doesn't reflect the official status, but then say that it does, just not early enough. I tend to agree that an early mention of Taiwan's unique status would be useful, but trying to jam the fourth paragraph into the first would be overkill. We need something concise but solid, and that will be difficult.

Also, the first sentence is very heavily contested. It would be better to get consensus here before trying to change it. Kanguole 09:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"Officially it is regarded as a part of China by about 98% of international governments” not true, most countries (like the US) actually have “no opinion” as their official opinion. They avoid answering the question entirely which allows them to continue doing business with both parties. This is why the US can sell advanced weapons to Taiwan when selling arms to China or a non-country would be highly illegal, same goes for all the European countries who export goods to Taiwan that the EU banned for export to China after Tiananmen... If they considered Taiwan part of China they would be breaking their own laws. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed. Foreign relations of Taiwan gives a good overview. The vast majority of countries on earth recognize the PRC only and the number of state ONLY recognizing the PRC is growing over time. Only 15 countries on earth recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation. The ROC was declared an illegitimate government and expulsed from the UN in 1971 with an overwhelming majority in favour. You can see the voting results here: https://en.wikipedia.org/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758#/media/File:Voting_res_2758.svg (The only countries with "no opinion" are the yellow ones. Most of the red countries have eventually changed their minds and are now on the PRC's side.) AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether Taiwan's diplomatic allies recognize "Taiwan as a sovereign nation" is disputable. There are opinions that Taiwan's diplomatic allies actually recognize the ROC government as the representative of China rather than recognizing Taiwan as a state. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph could be placed as the second paragraph. Would probably also make more sense as the first paragraph ends with saying that Taiwan is not a of the UN.Finn.reports (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Irtapil As the others have stated, officially most (many?) countries do not take a specific position regarding the Taiwan question and consider it "unresolved". They do not have "diplomatic relations" with Taiwan, but also do not recognize that Taiwan is part of the PRC. This is the case for the United States, Canada, Japan, UK, France, etc. etc. Most of these other countries simply use ambiguous statements such as "acknowledge the Chinese position" (USA), "take note of the Chinese position" (Canada), "understand and respect" the Chinese position (Japan), etc. Eclipsed830 (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph

• Ok so its pretty clear that people (such as OP) are getting confused by our current paragraph. I also think its out of line with WP:DUE because it gives way more detail than needed and is too long. However I think we should increase the prominence and I agree with @Finn.reports: on where to put it. I propose moving the fourth paragraph into the second position, moving the end of the last sentence of the first paragraph and and shortened to:

“Taiwan is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN). The political status of Taiwan remains uncertain. Taiwan is claimed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Domestically, the major political contention is between parties favoring eventual Chinese unification and promoting a Chinese identity contrasted with those favoring eventual independence and promoting a Taiwanese identity, although both sides have moderated their positions to broaden their appeal.”

The phrase "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China" has good intentions but it is ambiguous to the average reader. It would be more precise to state that "The entire country of Taiwan is claimed by the Chinese government (People's Republic) as part of China's sovereign territory"... this can be continued with "although Taiwan has historically been governed by previous Chinese regimes, Taiwan has never been governed by the contemporary People's Republic, which holds China's seat in the United Nations and is recognised by the majority of countries around the world as China's legitimate government." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree that the fourth paragraph should be trimmed (maybe not as much as that), but placing it at the end of the first paragraph would be disjointed. It would also not meet the objection of the OP, which was that Taiwan's status was not mentioned up front.

I believe that we need to revisit the first sentence, including "country", painful as it may be. I think the points that need to be made in that sentence are: Taiwan is self-governing, but it is claimed by the PRC and recognized by a small minority of countries. In that case the "most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)" bit could be dropped. Kanguole 20:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan is a de facto country, that much is certain. It is one of ten de facto countries around the world, according to this Misplaced Pages article: List of states with limited recognition. Referring to it as precisely that, a "de facto country", could be considered neutral, though I would certainly object to any notion that it is a breakaway state (i.e. "renegade province") or merely a self-governing region (i.e. "self-governing island"). The PRC's diplomatic claim to Taiwan should be acknowledged by this Misplaced Pages article, but not recognised. Any claims in this article that Taiwan is anything other than a country that rules itself would be placing undue weight on the PRC's claim to Taiwan and would hence be tacitly supporting a potential PRC invasion and annexation of Taiwan; i.e. it would not be neutral. Neutrality, in the case of Taiwan, doesn't mean placing equal weight on both the claims of the "independence activists" and the opposing territorial claims of the PRC. First and foremost, the Misplaced Pages article about Taiwan needs to be about and for Taiwan and the Taiwanese people before any weight is placed on foreign views towards the region. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It is recognized by almost all countries, to what extent they recognize it is another question, for instance the US recognizes them in all ways (economic, educational, cultural, intelligence, military, law enforcement, etc) besides diplomatic. The “country” question is settled, I’d wait a few years before trying to change it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I support the potential improvement in removing the "and is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)", which reads to be trivia at best, is unsourced, and is not present in the body. CMD (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove the words about "the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)". That is not important when describing Taiwan. WestCoastSaint (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Taiwan's political situation can be accurately summed up as follows (this is a pretty long description, so not really a summary): "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, is a country in East Asia... ...Taiwan's political status is heavily disputed both within Taiwan and outside of Taiwan. Significantly, China (the People's Republic of China; not to be confused with the Republic of China) claims Taiwan as part of its territory, specifically as 'Taiwan Province'. Since China is a United Nations (UN) member state with veto power, Taiwan has been unable to rejoin the UN ever since it was ejected in 1971, having previously held the seat of China in the UN from 1945 (the UN's founding date) to 1971. Taiwan is the most developed and most populous country that is not a member of the UN. Within Taiwan, major political parties hold opposing views on the sovereign identity of the country; on one hand, the Pan-Blue camp supports the idea that Taiwan is part of China and that the Republic of China (the official name of the Taiwanese government) is the legitimate government of China (including territories governed by the People's Republic of China), whereas, on the other hand, the Pan-Green camp supports the idea that Taiwan is an independent country, either as the "Republic of China on Taiwan" or as simply "Taiwan". Historically, the Republic of China was the internationally-recognised government of China from 1912 to 1949; following the Chinese Civil War, the government fled to Taiwan, an island which came under its control in 1945, having previously been a colony of the Empire of Japan. The Republic of China retained recognition as the legitimate government of China from 1949 until 1971 among many major countries in the developed world (mainly the West) despite losing control of over 99% of its territory to the People's Republic of China in 1949. Presently, Taiwan is recognised by 15 UN member or observer states around the world." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the proposed idea is a good one but i think to make it more clear something like "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China but governed and controlled by the Republic of China." so people would easily know that the PRC doesnt govern taiwan but only claims it.Finn.reports (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "Taiwan is governed by the Republic of China" is somewhat problematic since it implies that Taiwan is a subnational region under the rule of a foreign power (admittedly, this was the case w.r.t. the ROCxTaiwan, from 1945 to 1949), rather than being, you know, a country that rules itself. As far as I'm concerned, and I think many people would agree with me, Taiwan and the Republic of China are, effectively, one and the same. The dispute within the country is more to do with the "national identity" rather than control over territories. The current leader of the "Republic of China", Tsai Ing-wen, is ethnic-Taiwanese (Chinese) and rules over not just all Taiwanese people but also all "mainlanders (in Taiwan)", who, as far as I'm aware, don't necessarily see themselves as a separate ethnic group. --- Overall, it would be more accurate to state that Taiwan is the Republic of China, which could be phrased as "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China... etc." It's also a case of undue weight to start off with "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China". That information is important, but not as important as the goings-on within Taiwan itself. The PRC doesn't govern Taiwan and never has. It has international leverage over Taiwan on a diplomatic level, but Taiwan has always been self-governing ever since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. Before that point, the PRC never did govern Taiwan, though the direct predecessor of the PRC, the ROC, did. Since the PRC claims to be the successor state to the ROC, and since most countries of the world recognise this, a case can be made that the PRC has some kind of sovereign right to Taiwan (albeit indirectly). Though, Taiwan's status as even being a sovereign territory of the ROC is disputed; this dispute goes all the way back to World War II, back when Taiwan was under Japanese rule. The only parts of "Taiwan" that aren't disputed as ROC territory are the island groups of Kinmen and Matsu. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Taiwan and the ROC are the same but i think that in someway there need to be stated that the prc claims Taiwan although it has no authority over it earlier in the article. Because the PRC claiming Taiwan is a large part of the conflict between Taiwan and the PRC. a solution for that could be to move the 4th paragraph between the currenr 1st and second paragrapgh.Finn.reports (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The PRC claim to Taiwan is important, but the article should first make clear that Taiwan is a country in its own right. For comparison, Belize, a Central American country that has official diplomatic relations with Taiwan (ROC), is claimed almost in its entirety by the neighbouring country of Guatemala (which, strangely, also has official diplomatic relations with Taiwan (ROC)). However, the article about Belize doesn't start off by saying "Belize is claimed by Guatemala but it's ruled by Belize". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article calls Taiwan(ROC) a country and that would mean that the PRC claiming Taiwan as a part of its territory would come later as i suggested that the 4th paragraph should become the second paragraph.Finn.reports (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the information about the PRC's claim to Taiwan should be included in the introduction to the article, but the core information about Taiwan as a country should come first. The way you phrased it earlier, "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China but governed and controlled by the Republic of China." came across as problematic to me, for the reasons that I explained. If it were to be rephrased whilst still conveying similar information, it might be more acceptable. The specific phrase "is controlled by the Republic of China" came across as conveying the non-neutral notion that Taiwan's sovereignty (under the name Republic of China) is illegitimate. The more neutral way to phrase this information would be something like: "Taiwan (Republic of China) is a country... China (People's Republic of China) maintains a territorial claim to the entire country of Taiwan." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I get that "Taiwan is claimed by the PRC but governed and controlled by the ROC." might have not come across as neutral after you made that comment that is why i said after it that it should be more clear that the PRC claims Taiwan and i think the easiest and maybe the best way to do that is to make the 4th paragraph the second paragraph as i said earlier.Finn.reports (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, there's not a huge difference between having the paragraph about Taiwan's political status placed as the fourth paragraph versus as the second paragraph. The introduction of a Misplaced Pages article is supposed to be a summary of points that are elaborated on in the body of the article. The introduction is not really supposed to be an "advertisement" or political statement. In fact, looking at the actual contents of the body of the article, the segment on Taiwan's history is clearly placed higher up than the segment on Taiwan's political status. If you were to rearrange the introduction as you've suggested, you would have to rearrange the body segments as well. Frankly, I think that's a pointless exercise, though you have every right to attempt to convince other editors that it's a good idea that will be productive and give additional substance to the article as a whole. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan and the ROC are not the same. The same thing would not have different histories (History of Taiwan vs History of the Republic of China). Currently, "Taiwan" is just an expedient common name of the ROC; end of story. They are actually two different entities. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The Republic of China was a different entity pre-1949 when compared to post-1949. On Misplaced Pages, this is actually the current consensus since there's clearly an article titled "Republic of China (1912–1949)". Taiwan (Republic of China) and the People's Republic of China were both successor states of the Republic of China (1912–1949); the country having effectively been split into two post-1949. The original Republic of China government fled in exile to Taiwan and took over the administration of that territory, though that doesn't necessarily indicate that Taiwan (Republic of China) is a direct continuation of the Republic of China (1912–1949). Nominally, it is, but realistically, it isn't, and it hasn't been for decades. The boundary between the Republic of China and the modern Taiwanese republic (that is nominally still called the "Republic of China") is very vague, though one could consider the country to have changed regimes in 1996 when the first direct presidential election was held (often, it is considered to have changed a few years earlier, back in 1987, when Martial Law was lifted by the dictator Chiang Ching-kuo). EDIT: Actually, the descriptor "original Republic of China government" is somewhat misleading. One cannot deny that Chiang Kai-shek's KMT-led ROC regime on Taiwan came under heavy scrutiny, especially from former politicians of the ROC who remained in PRC-ruled mainland China, with regard to exactly how "legitimate" it was, and whether it represented the country of China as a whole, or was merely a "clique" of a failed dictator more interested in preserving his own power than serving the people. EDIT2: Here's the first sentence of that article that I linked: "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as China is a historical sovereign state in East Asia that was based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan." EDIT3: Here's an older version of that first sentence, since I noticed that it had been recently changed: "The Republic of China (ROC) was a sovereign state based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949. But Taiwan and the ROC are still two different entities, and that's why each has its own history. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There's some truth to your point here, but there are different definitions as to what "Taiwan" is. Taiwan is a single island, it's an archipelago (the main island plus minor surrounding islands) and it's a country. Those are the three main definitions of Taiwan here on Misplaced Pages. So, true, Taiwan the island is not the same thing as Taiwan the country... But Taiwan the country... is a country. "Taiwan" is an alternative name for the Republic of China. By that logic, Taiwan is the same thing as the Republic of China. Even if "Taiwan" is not the official name of the country which is known as the Republic of China, it's still a very commonly used name for the country, and even government officials and administrative bodies within Taiwan refer to the country with that name (alongside the official name). For Christ's sake, the Republic of China passport has "TAIWAN" smack bang in the middle of it. So, your argument is not that Taiwan and the Republic of China are different things... Instead, you are arguing that the already well-established practice of referring to the Republic of China as "Taiwan" was wrong from the beginning, should have never gained traction and should be done away with immediately. Unfortunately, there's a fat chance of that ever happening, since the majority of people around the world know the Republic of China as "Taiwan" these days. When people do come across the name "Republic of China", they often mistake this for the official name of mainland China's government; even Donald Trump made this mistake, I recall. So yeah... The Republic of China is Taiwan simply because that's what international society as a whole believes. So, you're not gonna win this argument. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Says the guy who failed to make clear his definition of "Taiwan" before making the "one and the same" assertion. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "and is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)" per the general agreement here. I don't see much agreement for any other particular changes. CMD (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan is a country!

The latest change is extremely confusing, and is only and obviously made to reflect the views of the CCP, which banned wikipedia in china, so there's really no point in kowtowing to this government! Tysonbanana4554 (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tysonbanana4554: It's not just mainland China, it's most other nations. Just one example: "Australian Government does not recognise the ROC as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government."

1. "Australia-Taiwan relationship". Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Australian Givernment. Retrieved 25 November 2020.

The preceding comment was seemingly left by Irtapil. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=next&oldid=990702941 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The most recent few edits were contrary to longstanding community consensus and I have reverted them. Thanks for highlighting it. Île flottante (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a double standard on Wikipedian geography. There are many other regions on Misplaced Pages that are called anything BUT a country (de facto state, break away state etc) even though those regions self-declare themselves a country but are not de jure status, and basically only 15 or less countries recognize them as a country. I see that a news article was more credible than UN, are news sources really what Misplaced Pages deem more credible than actual organizations that deal with politics? --XiaoSiWoLe (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the point you might be missing is that only one thing can be true at a time “de facto” but there may be infinite "de jure" truths at the same time. Thats the brilliant thing about law (especially international law), multiple contradictory things can be true at the same time. De jure Taiwan is *simultaneously* an independent country (Republic of China), an independent country (Republic of China, Taiwan), an independent country (Taiwan), a mere body politic, a rump state, a transitionary postcolonial state, a separate customs territory, and a province of China (there are a few more but today I’m giving explaining this on a wikipedia page not giving a polisci lecture). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is that the ROC no longer has "de jure" sovereignty, as the majority of the UN recognizes the PRC as the successor to the ROC. The ROC has lost de jure sovereignty, and so is not a country. Just like Kosovo, the SADR or Abkhazia, the ROC should be called a de facto state. StrangeSponge (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thats not what de jure sovereignty means. Also welcome to Misplaced Pages! I see that this is your first post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I see your point now. Since the ROC is a legitimate government of China, I think Taiwan should be called something along the lines of "partially-recognized country".StrangeSponge (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

How did you get the take-away from what I said that "the ROC is a legitimate government of China”? I never even mentioned legitimacy which is a different concept so far undiscussed here.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstanding, but my comment was just a clarification about my stance on the topic. StrangeSponge (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

XiaoSiWoLe Using the UN as a source to how we define a country introduces a poltiical bias though. The United Nations is a political organization, they take sides on political matters. Think of it like a private golf club; if a private golf course tells you that you are not a member and therefore not a golfer. Does that really make your not a golfer even if you are indeed a golfer? Eclipsed830 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Bravo to Horse Eye's explanation! Finally someone explained the Taiwan question perfectly. The ROC should be de jure ruler of all China but what can be considered by a lot of people as 'de facto' is in reality de jure Mtonna257 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, to actually say, an edit I made on my country's wiki was reverted. Don't know why! Citing the Constitution was deemed as false info and vandalism!! Mtonna257 (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Merci! Let's brace for more controversies Tysonbanana4554 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it’s better to stick to the own Misplaced Pages guidelines and keep actual information which states Taiwan Island a “de facto” State and not a “country” which is not since it lacks “de jure” status. Keeping facts neutral is the best way to go whether you fancy CPC or not.

Have a nice day Tyson! Junxin02 (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It might be helpful for you to stop using “de jure” and “de facto” since you don’t know what the terms mean. A state exists de jure when three conditions are met: a determined population on a determined territory with an effective independent government. Whether other states recognise said state has no bearing. Consequently, a State exists when three conditions of fact are met which means that a de jure state and a de facto state are perfect synonyms. Using Latin expressions you don’t understand doesn’t lend your argument the credibility you might mistakenly think it does. Île flottante (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No, those conditions would make it a de facto state. It would be a de jure state if it actually governed the territory and population that its constitution says it does. TFD (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No, again your use of the term of de jure is incorrect. The conditions for statehood are never determined by the internal constitutional order of a state. The de jure conditions of statehood are posed by international customary law and they are not affected by whether a state controls the entirety of its claimed territory. By your own logic, any state which has a territorial dispute over land it does not effectively administer would not exist de jure but simply de facto. Were your assertion correct, India would only be a de facto state (part of its claimed territory is administered by China), as would many other major states. The term distinction between de facto and de jure states is one that is wholly alien to the law and only used by those who do not understand the elementary principles of public international law. Île flottante (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Since 1991 the Constitution has defined Free area of the Republic of China to mean the same thing wikipedia mean by Taiwan. The current constitution does not claim to govern the mainland or its population. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

TFD As others have stated, the Taiwanese government limited their effective jurisdiction and the areas for which ROC constitutional law applies to during democratic reforms in the early 1990's. Here is the official "national" administrative division map of the ROC at all levels ("國家各級行政區域圖"), directly from the ROC Department of Land Management. Eclipsed830 (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The government of the the Republic of China only governs Taiwan Territory and makes no serious claim to the mainland. However, de jure (under the "Constitution of the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" which is the supreme law, it claims the mainland. Laws in any constitution can only be changed under the procedures set out in the constitution. "Effectively," which you used, means "actually but not officially or explicitly" (OED) or de facto rather than de jure.

Île flottante, we would say that de jure the Republic of India includes all the territory claimed in its constitution, while de facto it governs only a small area. So if it were reduced to a small territory and the world recognized an other regime that effectively controlled the rest of India, we would no longer call it the de jure government of India. TFD (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

TFD I'm not sure if you missed a ":" and were replying to my comment or not- but which article of the ROC Constitution specifically "claims" the "Mainland"? Also to be clear, the ROC Constitution itself does not change, but constitutional law can be amended through the Additional Articles of the ROC Constitution. Many parts of the ROC Constitution no longer apply, as there isn't even a National Assembly anymore. Eclipsed830 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Eclipsed830 "Article 4 The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly." Since the National Assembly no longer exists, Article 12 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China provides a new method to amend the constitution: it must receive a 3/4ths vote in the Legislative Yuan followed by a vote over 50% in a referendum "in the free area of the Republic of China." TFD (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand your point, both "existing national boundaries” and "free area of the Republic of China” are synonyms for what we on Misplaced Pages call Taiwan. In no way is that passage claiming sovereignty over the PRC/the mainland. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

TFD Exactly, the Free Area of the ROC is the territory that the ROC Constitution applies within. Article 1 of the Additional Articles also canceled out Article 4 of the Constitution: "The provisions of Article 4 and Article 174 of the Constitution shall not apply." Furthermore, the ROC Supreme Court was asked with Interpretation 328 in 1993 if Article 4 defined the ROC territory, for which they essentially stated Article 4 merely established instructions for changing the territory, and that defining "existing national boundaries" would be a political question that could be solved through the political process detailed in Article 4, but not by the current constitutional law or the judiciary branch (effectively abstaining from defining "existing national boundaries"). Eclipsed830 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Article 1 of the Additional Articles does not cancel out the territory of the ROC, it cancels out the original amending formula, which it replaces. And the "existing national boundaries" should mean those in existence or claimed when the constitution was written in 1947 in mainland China. I can't follow the Judicial Court document. Do you have an reliable secondary sources that say it means that the ROC no longer claims mainland China? TFD (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

TFD I think my wording is a bit confusing as I didn't want to turn this into a discussion forum, but I was specifically talking about the ROC claims with respect to the Constitution. My point is that the ROC Constitution isn't specific in defining its own territory. You are saying "existing national boundaries" refers to those boundaries in existence when the Constitution was written in 1947, but by 1947 the KMT already lost much of the north, the south was still controlled by Cliques and Mongolia was already recognized as an independent country by the ROC. Some people will make the argument that "existing national boundaries" refers to the territory of the ROC on 1 January 1912 after the Xinhai Revolution, but then "existing national boundaries" wouldn't include the island of Taiwan since the Qing signed it away to Japan with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Here is an opinion piece in that mentions Interpretation 328, but honestly there aren't many articles on this issue in English. Eclipsed830 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that link. I notice that the author says that most experts interpret the existing national boundaries as I would have. The CP in 1947 considered itself to be within the ROC, it's dispute was with the KMT. The PRP isn't a country that broke away from the ROC, it considers itself the successor state. IOW the CP took control of the ROC except for Taiwan and renamed the country the PRP. But the KMT refused to recognize the new government, claiming they were the rightful government. While the ROC would probably recognize the PRP as the lawful governemnt of mainland China, China will not recognize the ROC as the legitimate government of Taiwan. if Taiwan recognizes the PRP it would mean either that they had surrendered to CP rule or that they had declared independence, which would anger the PRP. So they remain in a largely unrecognized government in exile that continues to control a small part of China.

Therefore, Taiwan operates as an independent state with limited official recognition, but with a lot of unofficial recognition.

TFD (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This also isnt your first edit, your account has been active since 2016 and your first edit was at Drishadvati river. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Come on, that's just adding an internal link. You know what I mean. --In wkpd (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Taiwan(ROC) should be called a de facto country as that is what the situation is and as other countries with limited recognition on wikipedia also are being stated as de facto. Or other countries who are stated as de facto should be listed as countries.Finn.reports (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your second suggestion should be implemented. All states with limited recognition, as they are listed on Misplaced Pages, should be described in their respective articles as "countries". In their blurb/intro, an explanation of disputes relating to their political status can be provided. EDIT: Each country's situation is different. The way that Taiwan is described on its own Wiki page should have no bearing on the ways that other countries are described on their own Wiki pages, and vice versa. Taiwan's current description as a "country" has been the result of months of community discussion and consensus that has specifically been about this one page. The discussions on this page about Taiwan should not affect the discussions about other countries on other pages, at least not directly. Personally, I do think Kosovo, Somaliland and Artsakh should be described as countries, but it's not within my power to change their descriptions within their respective Misplaced Pages articles without first establishing a community consensus with other editors within their own articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan should be listed as a de facto country or a country with limited recognition as that is the current situation. Of course every country that is disputed or has limited recognition has a different situation but one thing they have in common is that they are all countries with limited recognition or disputed, which makes them comparable in that way.Finn.reports (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not the point. What I was saying was that, regardless of what you personally believe, each article on Misplaced Pages is independent from every other article. Whatever we do and say here, on Taiwan, has no bearing on what is done and said on other articles on Misplaced Pages. So, really, discussions about whether to call Taiwan a "country" or "de facto country" should have no bearing on similar discussions about other countries (whether they are members of the United Nations or not) and vice versa. On that note, there's no real authority being used to determine whether these ten "de facto countries" (as listed on List of states with limited recognition) are countries or de facto countries, aside from the list of United Nations member states. However, UN membership actually isn't the definitive word on whether or not a country qualifies as a real country. Switzerland, for example, joined the UN in 2002, but I'm sure you'd agree that it was a country even before it joined the UN. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said that only UN member states are countries. But Taiwan(ROC) is a country with limited recognition at the moment but it is still a country as it operates as a country and has sovereignty over a territory the only thing that it doesn't has is wide spread recognition that is why i think it might not be a bad idea to refer Taiwan(ROC) as a country with limited recognisition or a de facto country (which is a country with limited recognisition)EDIT: Which is the most neutral as it describes the current situation.Finn.reports (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In that vein of thinking, China is also a "state with limited recognition", since 16 member states or observer states of the United Nations explicitly do not have official diplomatic relations with China; those countries are Taiwan's 14 UN allies, the Holy See (a UN observer, which has relations with Taiwan) and Bhutan (which has relations with neither China nor Taiwan). China does have widespread recognition, sure, but it's certainly not recognised by 100% of countries around the world or even by 100% of UN member states. So, in fact, if you want to be EXTRA neutral, you should go over to China's Wiki page and change its description in its intro to "China is a country with limited recognition". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

China doesn't have limited recognition but has wide spread recognition as most countries recognise it. Taiwan is a country with limited recognition and that is just the current situation. It seems like you don't want to be neutral which is what wikipedia should be.Finn.reports (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Just on a purely technical note China is a state with limited recognition and there is no disagreement on that point within the Political Science literature. Arguing otherwise is like arguing that the sky is green. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt your conversation. I have a question (not an argument): Why is Palestine, recognised by 138 UN member countries and already an observer member of the UN considered a "de jure" sovereign "state", "claiming" the West Bank and the Gaza strip (it's constituents), but Taiwan, not a UN member of any kind and recognised by 14 very small countries (mainly small islands) considered a "country"? The double standard is unbearable.

I repeat that I'm just questioning, and I'm mainly concerned that Palestine is not considered a country, but that could be tolerated if there was some kind of standard. Nicxjo (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Because Taiwan has at one time (as the Republic of China) been a member of the UN and a fully sovereign state. Palestine has never been either of those.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Because Palestine can't even enforce sovereignty within its own internationally-recognised borders. Israeli tanks drive around Palestinian soil on the West Bank daily, Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinian citizens on Palestinian soil regularly, and the West Bank is full of Israeli settlements where the Palestinian government holds zero control. If you look at this map, this is the actual control that the Palestinian government holds within its own borders. In reality, they control less than 30% of their own land. This is absolutely not comparable to the situation in Taiwan. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why saying "Taiwan is a country." as the first sentence is very wrong and misleading

Taiwan officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia. Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, ...

Taiwan, an island in East Asia, is legally a part of China (the PRC), but also broadly considered a de facto state. 

"Imagine a staff making a PPT that will include a map of China, and he sees the Google result on the right. He may choose a map of China without Taiwan, and cause trouble to his company." You honestly think this is a thing that happens? That's bloody fantastic, if true. In any case, why should I care whether some buffoon makes a PowerPoint and ends up losing his China job as a result? If he's that stupid to make such a blunder like that, then that's totally on him. Personally, I prefer not to do business with totalitarian states. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I must say, initially, I thought you were genuinely concerned with improving the contents of this Misplaced Pages article. Now, I know you're just salty because you lost your China job over some PowerPoint that you threw together in half an hour. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Your formatting is bloody annoying. With that aside, I'd like to point out that Taiwan is not legally part of the PRC and never has been. I will respond to the rest of your points in a moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, so, first off, Taiwan has never been part of the PRC. The PRC claims Taiwan, and very few countries officially recognise Taiwan as a country, sure. But in reality, these are actually two separate issues, although they are related. It's not a zero-sum game. When countries don't recognise Taiwan, that doesn't automatically mean that they recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC. For example, the United States doesn't recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC, despite having official diplomatic relations with the PRC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There is another point that is important to highlight. The United Nations does not have the capacity to recognise the sovereignty of states. Only states can recognise other states. { https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ0Lfe8jVBI }. The United Nations has a list of member states, which is commonly seen as a measure of sovereignty, but this doesn't technically amount to recognition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It's true that international law does not recognise Taiwan as a country, technically speaking. More accurately, Taiwan is politically a proto-state, i.e. an emerging country. That's actually a more suitable way to describe it. However, unlike most other proto-states, Taiwan has all of the trappings of a fully-developed sovereign state, giving the impression that it actually is a proper country even though it isn't. The reason Taiwan has so much infrastructure already in existence is that it is effectively the successor state to the Republic of China on Taiwan, which was effectively a rump state of the Republic of China (1912–1949). There is an ongoing debate in international and domestic (Taiwanese/ROC) law about whether Taiwan (Republic of China) is the successor state of the Republic of China (1912–1949) or is a completely new country. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What must be said, however, is that Taiwan is a proto-state that is occupying territory that, as of yet, is actually not under the sovereignty of any official country in the world. Taiwan is not under China's sovereignty, though it also isn't under the sovereignty of Japan or the United States, two other countries that are strongly legally tied to Taiwan, nor is Taiwan under Taiwan's own sovereignty. However, Taiwan also isn't terra nullius since it also clearly has a defined population. More accurately, Taiwan is a non-self-governing territory whose status has not been resolved ever since Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan in 1951 with the Treaty of San Francisco. The most similar political entity to Taiwan in the present day is probably Western Sahara, a former colony of Spain that never truly gained its independence. Spain relinquished sovereignty over Western Sahara but Mali and Morocco annexed Western Sahara shortly afterward. Mali later withdrew from the territory. Meanwhile, a localist pro-independence militia, the Polisario Front, took control of part of the territory and declared a Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which became a proto-state. In Taiwan's case, it was relinquished by Japan in 1951. However, China annexed Taiwan a few years earlier, in 1945, and Taiwan was shortly after disputed between the ROC and PRC regimes of China as a consequence of the Chinese Civil War. Taiwan's political status was never properly resolved due to the dispute over which government of China was legitimate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most of the paragraph above and would just like to add that, the US and the UK did not agree with China's unilateral action of annexing Taiwan and stated that the transfer of the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan needs to be settled in a peace treaty (which it was not in the later-concluded San Francisco Peace Treaty). --Matt Smith (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep. At the time that the ROC annexed Taiwan, few major world powers recognised this completely. The United States tacitly "allowed" the ROC to occupy Taiwan but never officially recognised the ROC's decision to fully integrate Taiwan into the ROC. Meanwhile, the UK switched diplomatic recognition from the ROC to the PRC very early on but still didn't recognise the ROC's unilateral annexation of Taiwan (I'm not sure whether the UK recognises Taiwan as "part of the PRC" nowadays, though). In the present day, there certainly are countries that recognise Taiwan as part of China (the PRC). This seemingly includes countries like Burma and Cambodia, both of which are dictatorships in Southeast Asia. However, there are also a number of countries that maintain diplomatic relations with the PRC but are also simultaneously ambiguous regarding their recognition of Taiwan as part of China. This includes the United States, Canada and Australia, to my knowledge. There are probably many other examples. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The ROC was responsible for occupying Taiwan and that was part of the Allies' arrangements of the post-war military occupation just like the US was responsible for occupying the Japan proper. In fact, it was the US which used its navy ship to ship Chinese occupation forces onto Taiwan because the ROC did not have usable navy ships at that time.

As for the UK's current position of Taiwan's status, from the sources I've seen so far:

• The UK "acknowledged" the position of the government of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC and "recognised" the PRC Government as the sole legal Government of China.
• The UK does not recognize Taiwan as a state.

--Matt Smith (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, Taiwan's equivalent of the Polisario Front is the Democratic Progressive Party, which took control of Taiwan in 2000–2008, and again from 2016–present. Additionally, Lee Teng-hui a Kuomintang politician, was secretly working for the independence movement in order to undermine the ROC's authority over Taiwan; he was the president of the ROC from 1988–2000. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The major difference between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of Taiwan and the Polisario Front of Western Sahara is that the DPP usurped the Kuomintang/ROC rump state in Taiwan through legal, democratic means rather than violent warfare. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In conclusion, Taiwan's political status is extremely complex. It's not a country per se, though it's also not legally part of the PRC either. I'm not totally against the rewording of Taiwan's description as a "country" in the introduction, since it's certainly not a proper country, as I've pointed out here. However, I am vehemently opposed to any notion that Taiwan is legally part of the PRC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if most countries don't officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country. It's doublespeak. Sure, they don't "officially" recognize it as a country, but de facto, they are dealing with Taiwan just like a country via "unofficial" channels. What matters the most here is how the media sees Taiwan, and most of them say Taiwan is a country. pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 04:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:CONFLICTING is an essay, and not a Misplaced Pages policy, so it bears no substance when formulating policy-based decisions. When there is a content dispute, the article content follows the established community consensus, and based on past discussion, the consensus was that Misplaced Pages should use the phrasing "country" when referring to Taiwan. Editors who disagree with community consensus have no excuse to engage in edit warring and other such forms of disruptive editing, as seen from 21 November onwards; while it's certainly true that consensus can change at any time, this requires editors who challenge the status quo to initiate a community discussion to change the consensus first. Plus, contrary to the allegations brought forth by Nathan Rich's video, Misplaced Pages consensus is not a democratic vote, but rather is based on the validity of arguments from the perspective of policy, so the claim that the current consensus was brought forth by a majority of stupid editors picking on an oppressed minority of valiant editors through sheer numbers is completely inane and nonsensical.

Now, while I'd certainly welcome a new formal RFC discussion to gauge new consensus over this issue if editors are clamouring for one so much, I do have to address a few points that have been raised by proponents who have recently called for Taiwan to be rephrased as "legally part of the PRC" instead:

• Nathan Rich's video does an extremely poor job at directly addressing the points raised by the earlier RFC that established the consensus that Misplaced Pages should refer to Taiwan as a country, since he frames his desired talking point first, and then builds the scene around that. He makes no effort to address the Montevideo Convention, Taiwan's de facto foreign policy, or any of the theories of statehood. He desperately clings to "the UN says this, the UN says that", as if the UN is the sole arbitrator on determining what is and isn't a country (despite that countries have existed before the UN was formed in 1945, and that countries such as San Marino did not join the UN until very late into the game).
• There is excessive focus on how other limited-recognition entities such as Palestine are described in their article lead paragraphs. However, Misplaced Pages does not revolve around precedent, nor is uniformity between articles stipulated by policy. There is no policy-based argument for multiple different articles to follow any semblance of consistency.
• User:In wkpd's argument that Misplaced Pages's phrasing harms readers and companies because they might accidentally omit Taiwan from a map of China is dubious at best, because Misplaced Pages does not exist to fix injustices or pursue noble causes. Per Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer, readers may only use Misplaced Pages at their own risk. If somebody is shot and killed because of one of my edits to Misplaced Pages, it's not my fault, nor is it Misplaced Pages's fault.
• The ROC no longer has de jure claim over the entirety of mainland China, the Republic of Mongolia, and Tannu Tuva as of 2005, and anyone that claims otherwise is intentionally twisting the spirit of the law with intent to deceive. Taiwan and Mongolia established country-to-country relations in 2002, so anyone who makes the argument that mainland China is "constitutionally" territory of the ROC is conveniently ignoring the case with Mongolia. Furthermore, prior to 2002, Chinese diaspora with ancestry from Tianjin, Hubei, Jiangsu, Fujian, or any other Chinese province could apply for an ROC passport with special status that did not grant right of abode in Taiwan; now, they cannot, further cementing the fact that now that Kuomintang dictatorship rule has ended, Chinese citizens are no longer ROC citizens, in the eyes of ROC law.
• Per the dogma of self-determination, a country is a country when it considers itself one. The Kuomintang is no longer in power, and the present-day official position of the Tsai Ing-wen administration of the ROC government is that "there is no need for Taiwan to declare independence, because it is already independent, and its name is the Republic of China on Taiwan". Until the Kuomintang comes back to power (and it seems more and more unlikely with each passing day, based on two-party preferred opinion polling), the Democratic Progressive Party's interpretation of the statehood of the ROC will remain the official interpretation of the ROC government. On the other hand, the PRC has never placed boots on the ground in Taiwan at any point in history, and it is the PRC that declared its own secessionist state from the ROC in 1949, and not the other way around. With this in mind, any suggestion that the PRC somehow holds enforceable sovereignty over Taiwan based on the succession of states theory is making a claim based on pure fantasy. To argue that Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy requires us to also give equal representation to this fantasy is a pure farce, because the neutrality policy makes it very clear that fringe viewpoints do not deserve "equal footing".

This discussion has already gotten quite messy, with it splitting into multiple talk page sections for no apparently useful purpose; it'd be much appreciated if we can have the discussion take place in a single location for the sake of comprehensibility. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with pretty much everything you've written here. I just want to point out that In wkpd has declared lower down on this page that he only joined Misplaced Pages a few days ago. Furthermore, he has no prior knowledge about Taiwan, China, the ROC, the PRC, or literally anything relevant to this Misplaced Pages article. He's far from an expert on this topic... The topic literally has nothing to do with him. He claims that he decided to join Misplaced Pages and start assaulting this article on its claim "Taiwan is a country" after initially watching Nathan Rich's YouTube video "Taiwan is not a Country (even if you wish really hard)", which was only released a couple of days ago as well. I honestly have no clue what this guy's schtick is... It's just bizarre, to be honest. Like... why is he putting so much effort into defaming and denouncing Taiwan even though he literally didn't give two hoots about this issue only like a week ago? It's seriously confusing, concerning and comical. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets not comment on users here, if you have an issue raise it as wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're replying to me. However, I will say, I literally only just regurgitated information that In wkpd already laid out in another comment on this same talk page. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It was not a reply to any one user, hence why I did not indent it as one. It is a general notice to stop doing it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. I will say, I'm generally quite concerned about the fact that Nathan Rich's video was cited in this talk page (twice!!) without any background being provided about Nathan Rich's political motives and academic background. The statements that he made in his video were taken completely at face value by numerous Wikipedians in this talk page, and an absurd and furious debate was sparked and has been raging on for days. Again and again, I've questioned the entire foundation of this debate... Why are Wikipedians here refusing to question the veracity of the source? Several Wikipedians have claimed that "the source is irrelevant and is just a conversation starter". This argument is doubtful... Why should we permit a conversation to be started when the very basis of that conversation cannot be verified and when certain Wikipedians are actively trying to prevent other Wikipedians from even attempting to verify this basis? In my opinion, this entire situation is an attempt at gaslighting by malign actors. It is potentially even a brigade that is being sponsored by Nathan Rich himself. He has a history of doing that (he wrote his own Misplaced Pages article and tried to promote his business ventures there; however, he was eventually shut down by admins/moderators). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

In the space of one week, 15,000 words have been exchanged throughout this debate. Even if Nathan Rich doesn't win this battle, he will still have gained for himself a significant platform that he certainly does not deserve in any capacity. This entire situation is a publicity stunt on the behalf of Nathan Rich. No matter what happens, he will still make big bucks in the end. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither of your points matters. Whether other countries recognize Taiwan or whether international law recognizes it is irrelevant to Taiwan itself. A country is a country whether anyone else recognizes it or even knows it exists. --Khajidha (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Not true, I (for example) an not a country even if I now say "I am the country of Steve".Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said that a person who called themselves a country was a country, so I'm not sure what your point here is. --Khajidha (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

True, so what does " A country is a country whether anyone else recognizes it or even knows it exists" even mean? I took it to mean "it it calls itself a country" is that not the case? So is Principality of Sealand a country, or Principality of Freedonia what about Grand Fenwick?Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The first sentences doesnt say that Taiwan is a country but that the ROC is a country which it is often reffered as. I do think that the first sentence should be improved by saying for example "Taiwan officially the Republic of China is a partially recognised country/country with limited recognition/de facto country in east Asia." one of those three options would be the best in my opinion and the most factually correct and the most neutral.Finn.reports (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why specifically single out Taiwan then? Why not do the same for China, North Korea, South Korea and Israel, all "partially recognised" countries? The consistent and repetitive focus on Palestine and Abkhazia within this discussion is cherry-picking. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Because those countries are widely recognized and Taiwan(ROC) is not. You dont single out Taiwan(ROC)in that way it is just the current situation.Finn.reports (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Unrecognised in terms of reality, or unrecognised merely in terms of bureaucratic doublespeak with the aim of saving face? Can Taiwan purchase F-16V jets and M1 Abrams tanks? Does United States federal law prohibit the sales of advanced jets and tanks to non-state actors? Just like any interaction between human adults, what someone says at face value isn't necessarily reflective of their true intentions, and we should not pretend that the official statements of countries represent any form of reality, and instead look at the real-world behaviours of countries instead. Third-party reliable sources are certainly capable of distinguishing between de facto government policy and diplomatic circus, so there's no reason why Misplaced Pages cannot do the same. Governments say one thing, and do another; governments claim that they acknowledge the one-China policy, while treating Taiwan as a country in reality. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The current situation is that Taiwan(ROC) is officialy recognised by 15 countries. So the best terms to describe Taiwan(ROC) would be a country with limited recognition/a partially recognised country/ a de facto country. Taiwan(ROC) is a sovereign country but it is just a sovereign country with limited recognition as most countries dont officialy recognise it and most countries dont have any official or unoffical diplomatic relationships with Taiwan(ROC).Finn.reports (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The term "de facto country" is redundant. It just means "objectively, based on the reality of the situation, a country". Describing Taiwan as just a "country" carries the exact same meaning. Now, what you could say is that Taiwan is a country, although many countries believe its existence to be illegitimate and a violation of Chinese sovereignty. However, objectively, many countries actually do recognise that Taiwan exists, regardless of whether they consider it to be legitimate. This is evident since many countries conduct trade with Taiwan and have "representative offices" in Taiwan. EDIT: Taiwan is basically like the black market or the deep web of the international community, especially with regard to consumer products, manufacturing and tech. EDIT2: Here in Australia, you can go to a Costco and purchase Taiwanese beef jerky that is clearly labelled "made in Taiwan". To me, that amounts to recognition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Most countries don't have any diplomatic relations with Taiwan(ROC). If a label of "made in Taiwan" is your indication of something calling a country with widespread recognition. Than do you consider Hong Kong a country too? As things that are manufactured in Hong Kong are also labelled "made in Hong Kong" except by The U.S. since August.Finn.reports (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Its interesting that you choose to focus on diplomatic relations rather than economic, educational, law enforcement, military and intelligence relations. Most theorists consider diplomatic relations to be the least important of the bunch. I’m not aware of a major power that doesn't have relations with Taiwan, are you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I said any diplomatic relationships which means no unofficial or official diplomatic relationships. Major powers dont decide which countries have widespread recognition and no major power has official relationships with Taiwan(ROC). Most countries dont have any relationships with taiwan official or unofficial which means that Taiwan(ROC) is a country with limited recognition/partially recognised or a de facto country.Finn.reports (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Your opinion here is ridiculously POV. Moreover your claims regarding international law are simply wrong as Taiwan meets all the conditions of international law for statehood. Taiwan is both a de facto and a de jure state (even though such designations are not technical legal terms as they are synonymous). Île flottante (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There are opinions that Taiwan does not meet all the conditions of international law for statehood because the PRC's claim of sovereignty over the island of Taiwan has been recognized by most states in the world. Therefore, "Taiwan is both a de facto and a de jure state" is a POV, too. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

For a guy claiming to understand international law you’ve just stuck your foot in your mouth... "Taiwan is both a de facto and a de jure state” is a completely unobjectionable statement and in no way negates the statement "Taiwan is both a de facto state and a de jure province of China” because multiple de jure truths exist at the very same time... Especially in international law. If South Korea made a law saying that Taiwan was South Korea’s official butt plug emporium then de jure Taiwan would be a South Korean butt plug emporium along with an independent country and province of China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

And has any polity made a law saying that Taiwan is a state? None. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean besides Taiwan itself right? Just take a look at 22 USC §3303 posted by Benlisquare below. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That law still does not say Taiwan is a state. It just says that, to the US, the notions of country, state, etc, apply to Taiwan as well. In my opinion, the purpose of that law is to make up for the lack of diplomatic relations between the two, which is mentioned at the beginning of the law.

Here is a more straightforward quote:

The United States does not recognize the “Republic of China” as a state or government.

--Matt Smith (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thats not a law, and in context that doesn't mean what you’re trying to say it does. You’re also dodging the point of Taiwanese law, which is all we’ve ever needed. Remember you said "And has any polity made a law saying that Taiwan is a state? None.” which we have established is false. I’m not sure why you phrased it that way, even taking the Chinese line Taiwan is a polity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to other polities, not the ROC. The ROC of course can say whatever it likes in its own law. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You should have said that then, there was no way to get that from what you said. Do you accept that as written your statement was incorrect? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Which statement of mine are you referring to? And why is it incorrect? --Matt Smith (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"And has any polity made a law saying that Taiwan is a state? None.” You’ve agreed its incorrect, you said that you meant polity besides Taiwan.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I meant polities besides the ROC. If you think the US defined Taiwan as a state, I had explained that I think you're misunderstanding its law. And if you really know about the US's policy toward Taiwan, you would have clearly known that the US has always regarded Taiwan's status as unsettled since 1952. It's a general knowledge in the diplomatic circles when it comes to Taiwan-US relationship. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Don’t try to change the subject. It might be what you meant but its not what you wrote. What you wrote was wrong and you need to own that right now. You’ve read 22 USC §3303 below so you know that under US law Taiwan is to be treated the same as other "countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities.” now you haven't actually presented any law for us to interpret, have you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't and don't want to change the subject. I was just providing a side evidence that the US does not regard Taiwan as a state.

You can't deny the fact that the "22 USC §3303" does not explicitly define Taiwan as a state. You misinterpreted the law.

If the US really regards Taiwan as a state, the law never needs to use such an ambiguous wording saying the terms of countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities shall apply with respect to Taiwan. In stead, the law can be straightforward and simply say "The United States recognizes Taiwan as a state." Plain and simple. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"The United States has irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

What is side evidence? I’ve never encountered that term before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I thought "side evidence" is an English phrase, and it looks like my memory didn't serve correctly. I'm not sure how you native English speakers call it, but I meant "evidence from a different angle". --Matt Smith (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's not lose track of the elephant in the room here. The point of all this discussion is that governments tell lies as naturally as they breathe, and if you still don't understand this elementary concept, then you have no business "schooling us" on international geopolitics. The United States has no obligation to be straightforward, because it is the very nature of geopolitics to read between the lines, however that does not change what the United States' real world actions have been over the past half century. If you are insistent that we make judgements over the words of governments rather than their actions, then there's no resolution to this, and we'll be in perpetual disagreement. --benlisquare_T•C•E 22:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing with us your conclusion? --Matt Smith (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan(ROC) is a country with limited or a partially recognised country which is often refered to as de facto. Taiwan is at the moment not a de jure country as it has not widespread recognition.Finn.reports (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan is de jure a country, but its also de jure a province of China. Multiple de jure truths can exist at the same time, only one de facto truth can exist at the same time. You can’t keep making this claim when you don’t understand the term you’re using. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan(ROC) is not de jure country as explained by this sentence from cambridge dictionary: "The country has de facto independence now, and it will soon be recognized de jure by the world's governments." Taiwan(ROC) is not widely recognized so it is not a de jure country.Finn.reports (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You still seem to be quite convinced that "because a country says so, then it is so", and don't believe in roundabout diplomatic doublespeaks. How about I give you an example of monkey-patching legalese that'll nip it in the bud? I present to you, United States Code, 22 USC §3303:

(b) Application of United States laws in specific and enumerated areas

The application of subsection (a) of this section shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

(1) Whenever the laws of the United States refer or relate to foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities, such terms shall include and such laws shall apply with respect to Taiwan.

Put into simple words, you can't refer to Taiwan as a country because the United States "recognises" (lol) the one-China policy, so instead, the US has redefined the term "country" to mean "country, or Taiwan". The English language has essentially been monkey-patched by lawyers, just so America can pretend that it "respects" the one-China policy. Can we please stop pretending that countries actually mean what they say? It's clear as day that reality does not work that way. If the US did not recognise Taiwan (while trying to give China face at the same time), then there would be no need to go to such great lengths to jump through all these legalese hoops. The United States and its allies, in practice, recognise Taiwan as a country, while pretending otherwise, end of story. Taiwan has global recognition in practice, end of story. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We use dictionaries for their definitions, not to cherry pick example sentences from. Even by your argument Taiwan is widely recognized, we’re arguing about different types of recognition not an absolute lack of recognition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan(ROC) is not a widely recognised country only 66 countries have a relationship with Taiwan(ROC) with most of them unofficial.Finn.reports (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right... What is your source for such a specific statement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The wikipedia page of foreign relationships TaiwanFinn.reports (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source and I don’t see that number in any of the sources there. Which one did you see it in? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I made i mistake i meant to say 73 but i only looked at the representative offices in Taiwan. That number is in the lead of the article of you add the official relationships with the unofficial relationships.EDIT: I only looked at the representatives in Taiwan with the first number which is 66.Finn.reports (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The list on the wikipedia page isn't meant to be exhaustive and one of the numbers in the lead is unsourced and doesn't appear in the body. We cant use that to make an assertion about how many states have relations with Taiwan. We need a WP:RS. Also just a point of order but the lead gives either 14 or 15 and 57 as the number of states... So the number you would be arguing would be 71 or 72. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is an other source although the official relationships is higher in this sources as it has dropped the last few years.Finn.reports (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

www.worldatlas.com is not a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Jocstech (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC) TAIWAN IS NOT A COUNTRY, PLEASE RESPECT CHINA.

I agree. Please respect the Republic of China. Begone, communist shill! Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe if the PRC stop pretending that they are socialist, stop pretending that they respect human rights, and stop harassing our fishermen in the West Philippine Sea, I'd consider respecting them. pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 03:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Notes

1. See the chapter of Taiwan political status dispute

To Whom it May Concern: Nathan Rich on "Taiwan"

There is a new YouTube video that has just come out on Taiwan, entitled Misplaced Pages Takes Political Stance, Calls Taiwan a "Country". Will be helpful if Misplaced Pages contributors to this article will review this most-recent take on Taiwan by an American ex-pat who lives in China, and give their opinion on some of his arguments. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)<be>

Did anyone actually end up reviewing Nathan Rich's video point-for-point? It seems that we just ended up descended into a pointless general discussion about Taiwan's sovereignty, with very little specific references to Nathan Rich's video. In any case, I've found this reaction video which could be of note. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvcCQPhbBmM Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: As far as i can see it, however valid we may find Taiwan's claim of autonomy, the Wiki article presenting a stance that about ~97% of other countries disagree with (and the few who disagree are all micro-states or tiny Pacific islands) seems to not be consistent with Misplaced Pages's policy of being unbiased and presenting views points proportionate to their global support.

We could even refer to it as a "country" throughout, given it's more succinct than "semi autonomous region" or other terms, but the opposing view should be prominently mentioned, or the page doesn't seem like a very realistic depiction of the current situation.

I'm not even sure what the point would be of presenting a one sided point of view?

"Reality isn't decided by popular vote", so - for example - even if half the world didn't believe in evolutionary biology the unscientific view doesn't warrant weighting proportionate to popular support. But issues about borders and national sovereignty aren't really about "reality"? Borders and countries only exist as far as others agree they exist, and an independent country of Taiwan isn't something most of the world recognises as existing?

Possibly there's some harm minimization angle i'm missing? But i can't see any that make sense? If the authors of this article want to support the residents of Taiwan, then pretending their problem doesn't exist does not seem helpful? It would be like an page on Palestine that neglected to mention Israel? Or a page about the Indigenous people of Canada or Australia that read as if colonialism never happened?

Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Who?Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to respond to these arguments.Davidbena (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS, the source you have provided does not meet those standards and as such is of no use to us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: They were not including it as a citation in the article, so the reliable source standard is not applicable. I think @Davidbena: intended to show this as an example of the public perception of Misplaced Pages's coverage of this topic? Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I did I asked who he is? Why is he opinion of note?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:, @Slatersteven:, The video is not presented here as RS, but rather the arguments raised in the video. Wasn't this self-evident? We can still discuss the issues raised by Nathan Rich and seek to verify whether or not things written here, in this article, comply with Misplaced Pages policies. BTW: Talk-Pages are meant for doing just this. Nathan Rich opens-up with a strong statement that seems to show there is being exercised here, with respect to Taiwan, a certain discrepancy. As for Nathan Rich, see his Misplaced Pages article.Davidbena (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Rich's Misplaced Pages article had a significant amount of content deleted by moderators earlier this year or within the past two years (I haven't checked when, exactly) because he himself, the subject of the article, was editing the article and essentially using it to advertise his brand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW @Davidbena: i thought your purpose was entirely clear. Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

And all I have to do is look at its title "Misplaced Pages Takes Political Stance, Calls Taiwan a "Country"" if we called it anything it would be according to some "Taking a political Stance". This is a "please no one scenario". So we go with what the bulk of RS say. And wp:soap means this talk page if for discussing improvements to the article, not what some blokes view on the article is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: it's true that whichever side we go with is taking a side, but one major issue is that the opposing view is not even mentioned until the fourth paragraph. We could call it a country, but we should mention more prominently that this is not a universally accepted point of view. More prominently being in the first sentence, not the fourth paragraph.

And i think it is pretty obvious that @Davidbena: is pointing out that the relative weighting of points of view presented in the wiki page might be biased or inappropriately weighted. They were slightly indirect in the way they brought it up, but not unclear. Their point in showing the video is to show that people perceive this article as politically biased, and we should examine whether the article presents the topic appropriately for an encyclopedia.

Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

By "country" is obviously meant a sovereign country, without being a bona fide part of Mainland China. We find other disputed places in our world and where Misplaced Pages's role in portraying these countries should be neutral. I think that this is what Nathan Rich is trying to tell us.Davidbena (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM, if the point of this is to "discuss the issues raised by Nathan Rich” then this discussion will quickly be closed or deleted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: At this stage you must be deliberately missing the point? Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the purpose is not merely to discuss the issues raised by Nathan Rich, for the sake of discussion without an outcome, but to see if the issues raised by him are applicable to this article. This is a legitimate inquiry. I think the question should be "how many countries recognize Mainland China's sovereignty over the break-away republic of Taiwan, and how many countries do not recognize Mainland China's sovereignty?” Let us not forget too that even the USA has signed three communiques with the People's Republic of China (Mainland China) stating to the effect that the USA agrees not to challenge the PRC's sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, but to respect China's "anti-secession law," until such time that Taiwan will be reunified with the Mainland. And although the Trump Administration has reneged on this promise, the communiques are still regarded as binding upon the parties.Davidbena (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: "how many countries recognize Mainland China's sovereignty over the break-away republic of Taiwan, and how many countries do not recognize Mainland China's sovereignty?" As far as i understand it, it's somewhat complicated by both Taiwan and the mainland claiming sovereignty over both? Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So, in that case let us take the stats on both possibilities. They will still reflect a majority opinion.Davidbena (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The Three Communiques are from 1972, 1979, and 1982 respectively. The anti-secession law came into effect in 2005. None of what you or Mr Rich are saying is grounded in reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: boarders and countries aren't "grounded in reality", they're a mutually agreed fiction. Irtapil (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean borders? None of that takes away from the fact that everything Davidbena said is factually incorrect, not least of which the “binding" communiques that apparently reference a law that won’t exist for decades (in case you didnt know binding communique is an oxymoron). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: To be clear here, the United States did not recognize that Taiwan is part of the PRC in the Three Joint Communiques. They simply “acknowledged the Chinese position” without recognizing it as their own position. This fact was clarified in point number 5 of the Six Assurances issued to Taiwan on the same day the Third Joint Communique was signed- “The United States:… Has not altered its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan.”. Point 4 of the Six Assurances also states that the US “Has not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act”, which defines Taiwan as: ““Taiwan” includes, as the context may require, the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores, the people on those islands, corporations and other entities and associations created or organized under the laws applied on those islands, and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities (including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof).” Eclipsed830 (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's one stance from an official source. "Australian Government does not recognise the ROC as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government."

But looking up nearly 200 countries might be crazy, so i shoupd find a list, which actually already exists right here Foreign relations of Taiwan.

Irtapil (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That page "Foreign relations of Taiwan" is linked in this article, but not till the fourth paragraph, after three other quite long paragraphs. Most of the bias could be fixed by simply reordering the information that is already here, to order it according to relevance. Irtapil (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/de-jure
2. The country has de facto independence now, and it will soon be recognized de jure by the world's governments.
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/Foreign_relations_of_Taiwan?wprov=sfti1
4. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-countries-recognize-taiwan-as-a-country.html
5. "Australia-Taiwan relationship". Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Australian Givernment. Retrieved 25 November 2020.

The thing to remember here is that we should NOT be supporting a double standard. In nearly all Misplaced Pages articles, where the majority of UN members recognise a country as being sovereign, it receives De jure recognition. In the case of Taiwan which has never declared its Independence, the majority of UN members (93%) do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state or country. This article should be amended to note this fact.Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I added some examples below in a new section. Irtapil (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Irtapil: Excellent. I will leave any amends relating to this article up to your discretion.Davidbena (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I just mean the talk page section below #not consistent with other partially recognised states. I added examples of the intro sentence of every other partially recognised country i could find a Misplaced Pages article about, since multiple threads in this talk page are on the same topic.

Unfortunately i seem to lack the authority to do much with the article itself. I made a couple of attempts to reorder the information in the introduction, but it got reverted within minutes.

As i said in my first response to this thread, i'm honestly fairly confused by what they hope to achieve by burying the most noteworthy information, and presenting only one side of the story. Passionate supporters of the Kurdish people or Palestinians wouldn't try to hide the story about the nations that hold conflicting claims to their territory?

If you want something more balanced and informative than this eccentric Wiki article, i highly recommend several recent English language documentaries about Taiwan from the German public broadcaster DW, they're currently available on YouTube and not region locked, just search "DW Taiwan" (without the quotes). If English isn't your preferred language there's probably alternate versions of some them in German and even Arabic or other languages.

Irtapil (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Irtapil: If we reach a consensus, we can make the appropriate changes to this article. All depends on consensus.Davidbena (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Irtapil: do you mean DW programs like “Taiwan first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage" ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: not so much that one, no. I noticed that one and might watch it later, but it's not really what i would recommend as an introduction for someone who found the wiki article lacking.

The one i had in mind was "Taiwan: China's next target? | DW Analysis". It was a bit scary in the speculative bits, but the background in the intro clarified a lot of things which i had been confused about. For any other part of the world Misplaced Pages is normally a reliable 101, but i this case i just got even more confused by wiki, but DW made a lot more sense.

Irtapil (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the fourth word in the title? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: eventually, it took me seven read-throughs to work out what you were getting at. I thought you were trying to convince me Taiwan are "the good guys" because they are nicer to Queer people.

If this wiki article on Taiwan went nine words without clarifying the disputed status, that would be fine, but this wiki article goes for four paragraphs before even mentioning it.

I said already that calling it a "country" is justifiable, as long as the ambiguity is clarified fairly prominently.

I might watch that one now actually, i expect they don't mention PRC without mentioning the dispute…

Irtapil (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: "country" is mentioned once by a local being interviewed, the title seems to be a quote. The DW reporter doesn't mention it, he only says "Taiwan" without any added description of status.

No mention of PCR, let alone a description of it as a neighbouring country with equal status to Japan and the Philippines "Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south."

Irtapil (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: The reason why it is called a Country is not because of a geopolitical consensus, but rather due to the Opinions and Statements of our sources. If you look at the original consensus page, you will see that the most potent information in the favor of Taiwan being referred to as a country is the overwhelming prevalence of Taiwan being referred to as a Country in media. Misplaced Pages, is essentially an aggregator of information. We take information from many sources and use overlapping agreement amongst those sources to find what seems to be fact. The opinions of one Youtuber, who after looking over the video and his channel as a whole, seems to have a dubious level of neutrality in regards to the Chinese Communist Party, is effectful to this article. Also, this article is about the country! Not it's Geopolitical status. The intro should be a synopsis about the Country of Taiwan. It should be simple, Taiwan is a country in southeast asia, not Taiwan is a de facto state which is claimed by the PRC, not recognised by most nations in the world, but is commonly referred to as a Country. We should address these facts, potentially in the opening, but not in the first sentence. JazzClam (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you. Your counter arguments are good and reasonable. It will come down to the preponderance of sources (which, in a sense, counts for a consensus).Davidbena (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Nathan Rich's opinion does not matter

I've elaborated more on this point elsewhere. I believe that Nathan Rich is a state-sponsored propagandist. He also has an army of brigadiers, though I'm not sure whether they've been deployed here. In any case, he made this YouTube video about Taiwan's Misplaced Pages article purely in order to make money and rile up his fans. He is not an academic... He's a celebrity. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

QUOTE (from myself): That makes sense. I will say, I'm generally quite concerned about the fact that Nathan Rich's video was cited in this talk page (twice!!) without any background being provided about Nathan Rich's political motives and academic background. The statements that he made in his video were taken completely at face value by numerous Wikipedians in this talk page, and an absurd and furious debate was sparked and has been raging on for days. Again and again, I've questioned the entire foundation of this debate... Why are Wikipedians here refusing to question the veracity of the source? Several Wikipedians have claimed that "the source is irrelevant and is just a conversation starter". This argument is doubtful... Why should we permit a conversation to be started when the very basis of that conversation cannot be verified and when certain Wikipedians are actively trying to prevent other Wikipedians from even attempting to verify this basis? In my opinion, this entire situation is an attempt at gaslighting by malign actors. It is potentially even a brigade that is being sponsored by Nathan Rich himself. He has a history of doing that (he wrote his own Misplaced Pages article and tried to promote his business ventures there; however, he was eventually shut down by admins/moderators). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC) ... In the space of one week, 15,000 words have been exchanged throughout this debate. Even if Nathan Rich doesn't win this battle, he will still have gained for himself a significant platform that he certainly does not deserve in any capacity. This entire situation is a publicity stunt on the behalf of Nathan Rich. No matter what happens, he will still make big bucks in the end. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

And wp:soap. We are here to discus hot to improve the article, and nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how any of these discussions about Nathan Rich (pro tip: I'm not the one who initially brought him up) are in any way contributing to the improvement of this article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That is better, an objection based upon how we do things.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It's extremely disappointing how much influence one low-effort YouTube video can have. But this too shall pass. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Well its not an RS, as I said. At that point this should have been over. It cannot be used as a source, so whatever it says cannot be included. Thus this serves no valid purpose.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Interesting enough to watch. Not a reliable source for sure, but it is reflective of the sort of language that can be found reliably published. Some immediate criticisms: He is very loose with the word "fact"; he is obsessive with one meaning of the word "country" when it has a range of meanings and none are precisely defined; and he does not understand what an encyclopedia is, in that it is a collection of knowledge as opposed to being being a collection of facts. On the last, Misplaced Pages covers what people think Taiwan is, not the ultra-metaphysical fact of what is Taiwan is. That said, much he says makes sense, and I have heard it all before, from Taiwan-polarised people, and he puts it moderately. On my second point about "country" and what language is used on other non-UN state articles, tongue in cheek I throw the Misplaced Pages jargon at him, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Consistency is good, but consistency is never the top argument. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) small edits SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Contents of his arguments aside, I found his video quite annoying in that his Chinese subtitles have a habit of calling the grass blue and the sky green, presumably to avoid offending his primary viewerbase. Whenever he mentions "country", the Chinese subtitles read "國家" (TL: nation-state, country, etc. depending on context), and whenever he mentions "state", the Chinese subtitles read "地區" (TL: area, region; c.f. Flanders/佛兰德地區, Holland/荷蘭地區). --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Something else that is important to point out

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. The PRC has never been sovereign 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 attackers, 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? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent points. I think that we can mention all these as facts, and that there is a dispute over whether Taiwan (a break-away republic) should be re-united with Mainland China, and whether or not Taiwan enjoys "sovereign" status, as the current government (the CCP) was not a viable government at the time when Taiwan was separated from the Mainland. It should also be pointed out that the majority of nations who are signatories to the UN charter do not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state.Davidbena (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The facts as they stand are that Taiwan's status is undecided ever since the San Francisco Treaty was signed in 1951. Taiwan was part of Japan from 1895 to 1945. In 1951, Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan in the aforementioned treaty but left Taiwan's future fate up for further arbitration. Taiwan's political status ever since then has remained officially unresolved. Taiwan was never even technically legally part of the Republic of China, let alone the People's Republic of China. EDIT: Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

From the standpoint of a modern political entity or government within Mainland China, you are right that Taiwan was never even technically legally part of the People's Republic of China. However, after the departure of the Japanese occupying power from Taiwan (as well as due to other regional conflicts), a political entity was also established on the island of Taiwan to fill the vacuum and to give some semblance of governance and which called itself "the Republic of China." The two systems of governance (the one in Mainland China and the other in Taiwan) do not take-away from their mutually shared heritage and ancestral ties.Davidbena (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The point that I was actually making is that Taiwan was never even technically legally part of the Republic of China (ROC) before the People's Republic of China (PRC) came into existence. The ROC was established in 1912; the 1912 constitution doesn't include Taiwan as territory of China. In 1945, the ROC defeated the Empire of Japan (EOJ) in the Second Sino-Japanese War, forcing the EOJ to withdraw from Taiwan and leave the territory in ROC hands. To be clear here, the EOJ didn't legally cede Taiwan to the ROC at this point (which is commonly referred to as "Retrocession Day"), but merely agreed to the ROC occupying Taiwan for a temporary period, pending further arbitration on the future status of Taiwan. The ROC unilaterally annexed Taiwan almost immediately after they gained control of Taiwan. However, major countries around the world, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, both of which were allies of the ROC during WWII, have condemned this decision of the ROC historically. Prior to 1949, when the PRC was established, very few if any countries recognised Taiwan as part of the ROC. The PRC claims to be the successor state of the ROC, meaning that it has the right to inherit all of the ROC's former territories. However, as I've pointed out here, Taiwan was never a historical territory of the ROC, at least in terms of core sovereignty. The PRC's current claim is based on the ROC's previous claim, which itself wasn't even recognised by the international community pre-1949. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Japan lost the Second Sino-Japanese War not because the ROC defeated Japan, but because the Allies worked together against Japan in the World War II and eventually the US finished the Japan with two atomic bombs. In fact, the battles of the Second Sino-Japanese War had nothing to do with Taiwan because Taiwan and China were in different theaters. Taiwan was in the Pacific Ocean theater while China was in the China Burma India Theater. And in the Pacific Ocean theater, the US did most of the assaults on Japan (included Taiwan). For this reason, some opinions hold that it was the US that freed Taiwan from Japan. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This is true. However, the Second Sino-Japanese War is the war that was specifically fought between the ROC and EOJ, which is why I mentioned it. I also briefly mentioned WWII and the UK and US. Whether you view WWII as the "superior" war is a matter of opinion. My statement that the ROC won the Second Sino-Japanese War isn't false; it's true. However, just because the ROC won, that does not mean it had no support. The ROC was the primary force fighting the EOJ in mainland China whereas the US was the primary force fighting the EOJ in Taiwan, Okinawa and mainland Japan. It was the US that dealt the decisive blows against Japan in the end, though the ROC's contribution to the war was also significant. When the ROC defeated the EOJ in the Second Sino-Japanese War (with or without US assistance is irrelevant), it demanded that Japan hand over Taiwan as part of the spoils of war. This is the exact same thing the EOJ did back in the First Sino-Japanese War when it defeated the Qing Empire in a war that was mainly fought in Korea; upon winning the war, the EOJ demanded Taiwan as part of the spoils of war, although the war had not been fought on Taiwanese soil. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The ROC did not demand that Japan hand over Taiwan as part of the spoils of war when it defeated the Japan in the Second Sino-Japanese War. The ROC occupied Taiwan in 1945 because the Allies assigned the ROC this mission. And the Allies assigned the ROC this mission because they made a statement in the 1943 Cairo Declaration that Taiwan shall be restored to the ROC. It should be pointed out that, the US and the UK regard the said declaration as merely a war-time statement of intention and having no binding force of law, and that the Allies assigned the ROC the occupation of Taiwan for the purpose of waiting for a peace treaty to transfer Taiwan's sovereignty. That's why the US and the UK did not agree with the ROC's unilateral action of annexing Taiwan in 1945.

The ROC did demand this? In the Cairo Conference and Potsdam Declaration? I am pretty sure Chiang Kai-shek made his intentions clear. Ah, yeah, you've said it. There you go. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Although the two declarations were jointly issued by the Allies, I guess it can be loosely regarded that the ROC did demand this in the two declarations. After all, it was the ROC that brought up this demand during the Cairo Conference and asked the other two participants (the US and the UK) to add this demand into the declaration. The ROC claims that the Cairo Declaration is a legal document; the US and the UK disagree with that. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

As for the First Sino-Japanese War, from what I can see, at least 66% of the battles happened within Chinese territories or territorial waters. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the battles occurred in Manchuria and northern China, nearby to Korea. The war was mainly fought over influence in Korea and Manchuria. The war was partially fought in the Pescadores, though not very much in Taiwan proper. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please be accurate of your wording. The international community regarded Taiwan as part of Japan from 1895 to 1945, so Japanese government in Taiwan should not be referred to as "occupying power". Interestingly, from the viewpoints of the US and the UK, the phrase "occupying power" fits well to the "Republic of China" because both stated that the ROC occupied Taiwan since 1945. The UK even made clear that the ROC occupied Taiwan as a post-war military occupation on behalf of the Allies of World War II and that the ROC's occupation of Taiwan did not involve a cession or any change of sovereignty. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Colonial powers are by definition occupiers, there is no debate that the Spanish, Dutch, Chinese, and Japanese were Taiwan’s colonial powers the only debatable question is whether the KMT was a colonizer/occupier. That last question is still unsettled, the rest aren't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

By the definition of international law, Japan was the lawful owner of the sovereignty of Taiwan and therefore it was not an occupier. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

By what definition of international law my dear Mr Smith? Please be as specific as you are able to be. Also one can not own sovereignty, they are mutually exclusive concepts, perhaps you meant a different word? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

And by what definition are colonial powers occupiers? Regarding sovereignty, I'm not sure how native English speakers describe the ownership of territorial sovereignty, but I meant that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan (island) belonged to Japan (1895-1945). EDIT: I striked through the years because there are opinions that the sovereignty of Taiwan was Japanese until 1952. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean to say that Taiwan was a constituent part of Japan. Japan didn't own the sovereignty of Taiwan... Taiwan was part of Japan, so, theoretically, Taiwan owned its own sovereignty, as a part of Japan. You wouldn't say that Japan owns the sovereignty of Tokyo, for example. As a constituent part of Japan, Tokyo has sovereignty over itself under the flag of Japan. Anyway, when Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan, that wasn't actually a concession that Japan had merely been occupying Taiwan... Japan still considers itself to have been sovereign over Taiwan from 1895 to 1952. A country can cede a territory whilst also simultaneously recognising that it was previously part of the country's sovereign territory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I was just about to modify my previous comment because I recalled that there are opinions that the sovereignty of Taiwan was Japanese until 1952, and you beat me to it. Anyway, you get the idea of what I'm trying to express regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan. Also, in Treaty of Shimonoseki, it is written that "China cedes to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty the following territories". --Matt Smith (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

not consistent with other partially recognised states

They all mention disputed status in the first sentence, and some of them are far more widely recognised. Irtapil (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan's situation is without parallel elsewhere, but I agree that there should be some mention of it in the first sentence. The above discussions seem to imply that de facto/de jure labels are unhelpful. If we are stuck with "country" for now, I suggest

... is partially-recognised country in East Asia that is claimed by the People's Republic of China (PRC).

Kanguole 08:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Which of those has been a UN member at some point in the past, the ROC has. Taiwan is a unique case, but I would not be adverse to something like "challenged by the PRC".Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what it's worth, countless RSes directly use the terminology de facto state, de facto sovereign state, or de facto country when describing ROC/Taiwan. Here is a small sample that I compiled in an older comment (Talk:Taiwan/Archive 30):

• Clough, Ralph N. "The Status of Taiwan in the New International Legal Order in the Western Pacific." Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), vol. 87, 1993, pp. 73–77. JSTOR, Link.
• Barry, Bartmann. "Between De Jure and De Facto Statehood: Revisiting the Status of Taiwan." Island Studies Journal, vol 3(1), 2008. Link.
• Carolan, Christopher J. "The 'Republic of Taiwan': A Legal-Historical Justification for a Taiwanese Declaration of Independence." New York University Law Review, vol 75(2), 2000. Link.
• Ediger, Mikaela L. "International Law and the Use of Force Against Contested States: The Case of Taiwan." New York University Law Review, vol 93(6), 2018. Link.
• Otopalik, Cameron M. "Taiwan's Quest for Independence: Progress on the Margins for Recognition of Statehood" Asian Journal of Political Science, vol 14, 2006. Link.
• Cho, Young Chul and Ahn, Mun Suk. "Taiwan’s international visibility in the twenty-first century: A suggestive note." Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis, vol 72(1), 2017. Link.
• Article by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: link.
• Article by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs: link.
• Article by the BBC: link.
• Article by France 24: link.
• Article by NPR: link.
• Article by the Financial Times: link.
• Article by the CBC: link.
• Article by The Diplomat: link.
• Article by Foreign Policy: link.
• Article by the Japan Times: link.
• Article by The Wire: link.
• This common description is even recognized by an article in the Taipei Times: link.

— User:MarkH21 04:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A new search easily turns up many more. — MarkH₂₁ 10:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't require consistency between articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The way that it is currently written is slightly not WP:NPOV. I think his suggestion seems to be fair. Perhaps we should start an RfC on its use? Félix An (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence

"Taiwan is a country" seems to be breaking from tradition in Misplaced Pages when talking about disputed territories. Virtually every other contested state mentions the dispute in the lead sentence but for some reason this is absence in this article.

Examples:

• "South Ossetia is a de facto state in the South Caucasus recognised by most countries as part of Georgia."
• "Abkhazia is a de facto state in the South Caucasus recognised by most countries as part of Georgia, which views the region as an autonomous republic"
• "The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a partially recognized de facto sovereign state located in the western Maghreb"
• "Kosovo is a partially-recognised state and disputed territory in Southeastern Europe."
• "The Turkish Republic of Cyprus is a de facto state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be part of the Republic of Cyprus."

I could go on but I think you get the point I am trying to make. Taiwan, in contrast to virtually every other de facto existing state does not mention this in its lead sentence (and refers to it as a "country" instead of a "state"), instead only mentioning it after three dense paragraphs in the lead. Shouldn't the article be brought into synchrony with the rest of wikipedia? PailSimon (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing this above, having the same conversation in 15 separate places only confuses matters.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There are two other possibilities. 1) the possibility that the Taiwan situation is different enough from those others to justify a different presentation and 2) the possibility that the other articles should be rewritten more like the Taiwan article. --Khajidha (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned within the sections above, there is nowhere within Misplaced Pages policy that dictates that Misplaced Pages content must follow precedent. Thus, any argument to change the phrasing in the lead paragraph should be done so on its own individual merits, regardless of the lead paragraphs of other articles. We're seemingly having the same discussions over and over again, please CTRL+F the talk page before creating yet another new thread. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I watched the YouTube video. I see these entities. It doesn’t matter what these articles say. They’re completely irrelevant. Look at the populations and GDP and military of these entities. You just can’t compare them to Taiwan, its like a 2-4 order of magnitude difference. Stephen Balaban 21:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

why do people want to present a one sided story?

@Horse Eye's Back, Kanguole, Slatersteven, Matt Smith, Davidbena, Jargo Nautilus, In wkpd, Eclipsed830, and In wkpd: Can a anyone help me understand the other editors' motivations in this dispute? There's a justification for keeping harmful information off Misplaced Pages, for example i would expect a lot of the chemistry articles omit information that might be illegal or dangerous? but i don't understand how presenting Mainland China's side of the story is harmful? China's stance seems to present a serous that to Taiwan, but ignoring that issue seems like it would be counter productive? I don't see how leaving out this information - or burying this information under other details - helps anyone? It just leaves readers with an incomplete impression of the situation. Irtapil (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to have the same discussion in 3 or 4 separate threads. We have made out cases in threads above, please red those and respond there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Irtapil All of my edits have been based on facts, not opinions or "sides". I have not taken a position on the country vs. state matter, but I personally think the term "country" is appropriate within the context of the article. While I understand that the PRC claims Taiwan as part of its territory, the fact is the PRC has never had any sort of authority, power or jurisdiction over the island of Formosa/Taiwan, its people, its government, its laws, etc. I also do not think it's appropriate to have these same discussions over and over again, as at this point they are repeating the same stuff that has already been discussed. It would be much better to focus on improving other aspects of the article, instead of focusing on one or two minor edits/details/words. Eclipsed830 (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that the premise of this question is false, as there is an extensive section in the article on "Political and legal status" where the PRC's "side of the story" is well represented. Zoozaz1 talk 14:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1: Yes, i found that article, but i am talking a about this one. But since you mention it, why is that article not linked when PRC is first mentioned in this one? This article starts with "Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest" and doesn't mention the complexity of the relationship till after three paragraphs of other details. If it took the paragraphs to mention PRC at all that would be a bit odd, but not misleading. But mentioning PRC in "neighbouring countries" without describing the relationship then and there seems like a very deliberate omission. Irtapil (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Irtapil, Yes, in this article there is a section on political and legal status where the PRC's side of the story is represented. And the reason you seem to take issue with the lead is only because there is a limited amount of space. We cannot detail the complexities and nuances of the political and legal status in a sentence; if you want to discover those complexities, you should read the section above and the political status of Taiwan article in its entirety and, if you take issue with specific points, discuss them. Of course the first sentence doesn't detail the complex political relationship, because in an article about Taiwan there are more important things than some incredibly complex international legal controversy, which couldn't fit into a sentence without someone objecting to it. Zoozaz1 talk 15:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1: why did you put "Political and legal status" in quotation marks when it's called "Political status of Taiwan"? Irtapil (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 

Irtapil, I was referring to the section of this article that you might have missed, not the separate article on the subject. Zoozaz1 talk 15:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Zoozaz1 I actually already mentioned this information days ago and it went over everyone's heads. So many people here are just trying to strongarm some kind of agenda without listening to the facts. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It gets a whole paragraph in the lead, in what way are we presenting just one side of the story? TBH we currently seem to give it undue weight in the lead, we don’t even mention that Taiwan has cornered the global market for computer chips and has surpassed even the United States in microchip technology (the most important aspect of the country from an objective point of view) yet we have a whole paragraph about something that is immaterial to almost everyone involved. I would cut the feud with China down to two sentences at most. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging you over to this section. Why saying "Taiwan is a country." as the first sentence is very wrong and misleading - Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that people are conflating the question of "is Taiwan a country?" with the distinct albeit related question "is Taiwan part of China?". Just because Taiwan isn't a country (as I've explained in the thread of comments that I pinged, Taiwan actually isn't a country), that doesn't automatically mean that Taiwan is part of China. In fact, Taiwan is simultaneously not a country and not part of China. - Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Taiwan actually is independent... It's just not a country. It's a de facto state, proto-state, whichever you prefer (I prefer the latter). It just isn't a full-fledged country. Taiwan is on its way to becoming a country. It's an emerging country, in the most basic sense. There's literally a political party in Taiwan that occupies one of the seats on the Legislative Council called the "Taiwan Statebuilding Party". Clearly, the term "statebuilding" implies that the state is still currently in the process of being built. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There actually isn't a huge issue with describing Taiwan as a de facto state or proto-state in the lede. The main problem with doing so is that there's too much weight simultaneously being placed on the PRC's territorial claim to Taiwan. The PRC's claim is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Taiwan is a sovereign state versus a proto-state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with the notion that Taiwan isn't a country, since this is factually correct. Taiwan has never formally declared independence. At the moment, the Taiwanese independence movement has instead chosen to hijack the Republic of China's political infrastructure and subvert the pre-existing ROC rump state from within, rather than challenge the rump state's legitimacy through violent means. The Democratic Progressive Party is a Taiwanese nationalist party but it rules over Taiwan within the framework of the pre-existing ROC rump state infrastructure. The Taiwan independence movement's "queen leader", Tsai Ing-wen, is actually legally the president of the Republic of China, not the president of Taiwan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

However, many of the Wikipedians here who are pushing the notion that Taiwan isn't a country are doing so in bad faith... They are not just saying "Taiwan isn't a country", which, again, is something that I actually agree with. Instead, what they are saying is "Taiwan is not a country because it belongs to China", which seemingly sounds the same but is actually completely different. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

In truth, Taiwan is not a country because, if it were to formally declare independence and rewrite the Kuomintang/ROC constitution that Taiwan currently uses, this would prompt a military invasion or missile barrage from China. Taiwan has all the cards in place to become a country. At the present time, it actually functions more-or-less as a country, albeit a really weird one that officially carries the title of a foreign country. Taiwan's situation is quite similar to Western Sahara, as I've pointed out in the thread that I pinged. Taiwan isn't part of China, though the fact that China actively lays claim to Taiwan is enough to scare the Taiwanese into not declaring independence, at least not just yet. However, the fact that Taiwan hasn't declared independence doesn't automatically mean it's part of China. It's actually a non-self-governing territory that isn't part of any country at the moment, although it is (nominally) occupied by the ROC rump state in Taiwan (bear in mind that the ROC is basically already dead in all but name, ever since the DPP usurped the state for the second time back in 2016) and is claimed by the PRC sovereign state over in mainland China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

An appropriate summary of Taiwan's situation would be the following: "Taiwan is a non-self-governing territory that is controlled by an indigenous proto-state. The territory was formerly a rump state of the Republic of China, a former Chinese regime that ruled mainland China (1912–1949) but fled the country in exile after losing the Chinese Civil War, choosing to instead relocate to Taiwan. Taiwan is still officially known as the "Republic of China", although its political system and the balance of power in the country (between ethnic groups and political factions) have both changed dramatically in recent decades. At the same time, the government of mainland China, the People's Republic of China (1949–present), maintains a territorial claim to Taiwan, on the basis that Taiwan was historically part of China. The claim that Taiwan was historically part of China is disputed, with many in Taiwan seeing the previous periods of Chinese rule as instances of temporary occupation rather than legitimate Chinese sovereignty." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to talk about the motivation. My plan is to look into the Misplaced Pages Policies and Guidelines, and see if we can find a version backupped by the policies/guidelines. It's all about understanding what Misplaced Pages is. So I suggest you read Five pillars if you feel confused. Dig into those principles, and you'll know what's right. If you still find this Page needs to be fixed after that, you will come back with stronger arguments.--In wkpd (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging you over to this section. Why saying "Taiwan is a country." as the first sentence is very wrong and misleading - Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I've migrated the new section you opened over to my own user talk page. As far as I can tell, the topics you were discussing were irrelevant to improving this article. Stay on topic, please. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Both the PRC and ROC agree that China is a country consisting of the mainland and Taiwan and so does every other country in the world. The only dispute is over who is the legitimate government - the PRC which currently controls the mainland or the ROC which currently controls Taiwan. There is a fringe view that Taiwan was never part of China and therefore has a right to self-determination which unfortunately is the view pushed by this article. TFD (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean to tell me that the current "Republic of China", ruled by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) under the presidency of Tsai Ing-wen, claims mainland China as part of its territory? Tsai Ing-wen is the current "queen leader" of the Taiwan independence movement... she isn't necessarily a hardline independence supporter, but she certainly leans heavily in that direction. Actually, her vice-president William Lai Ching-te, spokeswoman Kolas Yotaka and foreign minister Joseph Wu seem to be much more pro-independence than she is, at least in terms of their public personas. But anyway... Taiwan can really only be said to "claim mainland China" whenever it is under the leadership of the Kuomintang (KMT), and even then, the KMT has softened their stance over the past few decades, ever since it became apparent that they were (1) being overtaken by the People's Republic of China in terms of economy and military and (2) losing popular support in Taiwan to the DPP. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The claim that the ROC deliberately claims the entirety of China is an intentionally spread falsehood oft-repeated time and time again in these discussions. The ROC has not made any official statement regarding territorial changes, because anything that could be remotely interpreted as secession can result in 5,800 missiles being launched from the Fujian coast. Taiwanese politicians are not stupid, and won't risk the lives of Taiwanese citizens just to score some brownie points. The current status quo of deliberate ambiguity serves a practical purpose and provides harm-minimalisation. In reality, if you look how actual ROC laws have changed since 2002, the ROC essentially treats itself as a separate sovereign state to Mongolia, Tannu Tuva, and mainland China. If you disagree, then name me one ROC law that grants Mongolian, Russian or PRC citizens special legal status within ROC jurisdiction within the realms of taxation, police detainment, corrections, real estate ownership, or any other facet of ROC society. --benlisquare_T•C•E 22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan and Republic of China are two things

Taiwan is a geographic term, describing an island. Republic of China is a de facto, partially recognized state, not a country, which governs not only Taiwan and a few other islands. Deliberately mixing the two up is shameful, making Misplaced Pages spreading false information that "Taiwan is a country", despite it isn't. Even Republic of China has a province called "Taiwan Province", no joke, even though it's pointless. Taiwan was not, is not, and most probably would not be a country. Stop spreading false information. Same for other language versions.--owennson (Meeting Room、Certificates) 07:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. You and I live in a Chinese-speaking environment and clearly know the consequence of mixing the two. Unfortunately, English-speaking editors appear to care very little about the consequence. This topic has been brought up many times, and this won't be the last time. But I doubt English-speaking editors would change their minds. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, when you spout such gibberish as "partially recognized state, not a country" it's pretty dang hard to take anything you say seriously. ANY sovereign state (whether partially or universally recognized} is a country. --Khajidha (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

While in general on Misplaced Pages we avoid belittling editors for a lack of erudition or education (that is perhaps the greatest philosophical difference between Wales and Sanger after all) I find myself agreeing with Khajidha. It seems that on both sides of this issue the editors making the most noise and making the most definitive statements know the least about the issue at hand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The term country is however ambiguous. One could say for example that the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are both countries. But then Northern Ireland is considered a country within the UK & NI, while Ireland as a whole is also considered to be a country that has been partitioned. China is a country that is administered by the PRP on the mainland and the ROC in Taiwan. TFD (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by PRP? At first I thought it was a misspelling but you’ve used it six times in a row so it cant be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant PRC. TFD (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Including Taiwan in the definition of China is a strong POV. Please avoid doing that. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Matt Smith, how is it strongly POV when it is the official position of the PRC, the ROC, the UN and every country that recognizes either of the two Chinas? Notice that both states include "of China" in their names. TFD (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

As has been explained to you a half dozen times now thats not true, please stop spreading disinformation (you know its false at this point, there is no excuse). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The Taiwan independence movement holds the position you advocate, but it is far from the consensus view. TFD (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The Taiwan independence movement also thinks The Four Deuces's argument is full of holes which have already been pointed out to them? I find that unlikely but its not the most unbelievable thing you’ve written in the last hour. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do they call themselves the Republic of China (Taiwan) if they are not actually in China? TFD (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Why did the Holy Roman Empire call themselves the Holy Roman Empire, despite being neither holy, nor Roman (they were Germanic), nor an empire? --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Because they wished to conquer italy and restart the Roman Empire as a successor state? not to mention it being called the Holy Roman Empire officially is disputed by historians today while theres no possible way anyone could dispute the name Republic of China. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You might want to brush up on your central European history, and your Voltaire. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying they didn't adopt the name Holy Roman Empire specifically to lay claim to italy or are you saying the Holy Roman Empire was founded by Charlemagne when he was crowned Emperor of the Romans because usually thats called the Carolingian Empire named after the ruling Dynasty. also, Voltaire's histiography is considered pretty outdated now so I wouldn't take his word as gold. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

They called themselves the Holy Roman Empire because, per the Misplaced Pages article, "the Emperor's legitimacy always rested on the concept of translatio imperii, that he held supreme power inherited from the ancient emperors of Rome." TFD (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"Why do they call themselves the Republic of China (Taiwan) if they are not actually in China?" 1) Inertia, 2) Lingering dreams of restoring control over China, 3) fear of Chinese aggression --Khajidha (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@TFD: The PRC and the ROC can hold whatever positions they like, but that does not mean their positions conform to international law. Please don't forget that the position of the US regarding this issue is that the status of Taiwan is unsettled. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What is unsettled is its relationship with the PRC, not that it is not Chinese. I am sure they and many other countries would prefer that both the PRC and ROC change their constitutions so that they nor longer claim each other's territory, just as the Federal Republic of Germany gave up its claim to East Germany and Western Poland, and the Republic of Ireland gave up its claim to Northern Ireland. TFD (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No. What is unsettled is the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan (island). The US does not recognize the PRC and the ROC's claims that Taiwan is part of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

No, they don't recognize that Taiwan is part of the PRC, just as the UK does not recognize that Northern Ireland is part of the Republic of Ireland. Just because someone sees China, Ireland, Germany, Korea or Vietnam as countries does not mean they want to see them united under one or the other government. TFD (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please cite a governmental or government-related source of the US to prove that the US recognizes Taiwan as part of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree aswell. the conflation of the two and the way the article as presently written only seems to serve to further the taiwan independence movement within the Republic of China which wikipedia shouldn't be trying to support. seems as crazy to me as putting Britain or America as the primary names of each respective countries in their respective articles because people commonly call them as such. the official name is Republic of China and should remain as such until legally changed. and legal change seems unlikely as neither main political party there has made any policy towards declaration of independence. Presidents have over the years repeatedly upheld the claims on the rest of China as well as in the 2018 referendum citizens rejecting the name Taiwan for the upcoming olympics . I'm of the opinion that this is probably all directed by zealous anti-PRC folk who want to oppose that government by distorting facts as much as possible. if so, they should recuse themselves and let a non-charged consensus that doesn't confuse readers or make large conflations on pretty weak logic. Misplaced Pages should be for the truth not personal crusades Thehighwayman5 (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan is the colloquial name for the Republic of China. The best geographic term that describes the main island of Taiwan would probably be Formosa, as "Taiwan" (as you mentioned because of the old Taiwan Province) historically within context of the ROC included Penghu and the other Pescadores Islands too. Modern day the government uses "Taiwan" to describe all areas under its control, and not specifically just the main island. For example, Penghu Airport has a large sign that says "Welcome to TAIWAN!" and the official address for Lienchiang County (Matsu) is listed as "No.76, Jieshou Village, Nangan Township, Lienchiang County 209, Taiwan (R.O.C.) (at the bottom)". Eclipsed830 (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Formosa is as common as its usually seen as a historic and eurocentric name. I believe Taiwan is used both for the main island and also for the archipelago itself (alongside it being a generic name for the ROC). If Formosa is the best geographic term I think someone should go and change the Formosan republic article because it uses the term Island of Taiwan. I don't think its incredibly weird for the island of Matsu to be refered to as Taiwan considering with other countries such as the United Kingdom they have terms like BREXIT (British Exit) used but nobody thinks that its just the island of Britain or the British isles, as being geographic locations leaving the EU but the whole country of the United Kingdom. even the term British itself could be considered confusing since it refers not to people born in Britain or the British isles but those born of a nationality called british which includes the sub-nationalities English and Scottish and Welsh but disincludes Irish despite being part of the Isles. Obvious parallels exist considering the PRC-ROC relationship and the recent Taiwanese nationalist movement which wants to create a new nationality Taiwanese Thehighwayman5 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don’t really consider Formosa to be “eurocentric” anymore. Typically its used by Taiwanese in English translations of poetry and music to indicate the nature, biological and physical geographical features of the main island itself. It is also commonly used by Taiwanese scientist in the English translations of endemic species such as the Formosan black bear, Formosan serow, Formosan macaque, etc. Lastly, 3 of the largest 50 (TWSE) companies in Taiwan use Formosa instead of Taiwan in their English names, such as Formosa Plastics, Formosa Oil and Formosa Chem & Fibre. Eclipsed830 (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

that fair but I've personally never heard it used as such and view it in the same vein as the term Sino, a term which used to be the common, slightly westernized description but gradually over time got superceded by a different term. I mean the word Formosa comes from portuguese a language not used on the island versus Taiwan which comes from one of the native languages so on the face of it its atleast etymologically western. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thehighwayman5 "Taiwan" actually comes from the Dutch, as they couldn't figure out how to spell Tayouan lol: "As early as 1636, a Dutch missionary referred to this group as Taiouwang. From the name of the tribe, the Portuguese called the area around Ping'an as Tayowan, Taiyowan, Tyovon, Teijoan, Toyouan, and so forth. Indeed, already in his ship's log of 1622, the Dutchman Cornelis Reijersen referred to the area as Teijoan and Taiyowan." Eclipsed830 (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting but you know what I mean, its a Dutch or Portguese way of pronouncing the native word not a native portuguese word applied to the area. I'm aware of how hard it can be to translate names into other languages because I speak Japanese and Japanese Romanizations annoy the hell out of me. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting... In the modern era pretty much the only people I see using Formosa are Taiwanese. Just FYI the name “China” is Eurocentric, its a foreign term which was imported by the nascent nationalists at the end of the 19th century and retroactively applied to a number of dynasties and states which had never seen themselves as part of the same political or historical tradition. The idea of China isn't ancient, its a modern nationalist conception like the rest of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

well of course the nation of China was invented recently as the entire idea of nations is a western concept imported to fit local conditions but thats hardly relevent. one could make the argument since Marxist Communism and Liberalism we're imported from europe the governments in these countries are foreign and eurocentric. with regards to your assertion the dynasties weren't part of the same political or historical tradition is quite ludicrous. the different dynasties adopted the bureacratic institutions and infrastructure that pre-existed themselves such that there was a very clear and deliberate movement from Yuan dynasty to Ming dynasty to Qing dynasty etc. governance. Each emperor or king or whatever title depending on the dynasty deliberately adopted the "Mandate of heaven" or other politico-cultural aspects like inherited monarchy (the Manchus traditionally elected their monarchy from a group of nobles similar to medieval poland but abandoned this in order to inherit the Chinese empire) in order to connect themselves to system. The idea of dynasties does not mean underlying state apparatuses don't exist (the Hasburg dynasty didn't erase the concept of Austria or Spain or cause those states to stop existing upon their fall from power) nor does the idea that a country pre-exist nationalism means that there isn't a self identification or tradition (the Roman empire predates nationalism by thousands of years but people considered themselves romans all throughout its time such that even in greece in the early 19th century there we're islands with people who called themselves romans). China did not come into existence in 1912 out of nowhere. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What about moving the existing Taiwan article to Taiwan (Republic of China) and using Taiwan as a disambiguation page where readers could choose to read on the island itself, the ROC which currently governs it, the mainland's claim, etc.? Félix An (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary as there is already a link to Taiwan (disambiguation) on the page.--Khajidha (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That would violate WP:COMMONNAME, literally nobody calls Taiwan "Taiwan (Republic of China).” There is only one common name, not even Republic of China is commonly used anymore as demonstrated by this google trends readout . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

But people might just be referring to the island and not the disputed political entity. People often say "Taiwan" to simply refer to the geographical location. Félix An (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes about as much sense as thinking someone who says "I'm going to Japan" means the islands and not the political entity. --Khajidha (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

People often say "Taiwan" to simply refer to the geographical location. Citation needed. pandakekok9 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It is normally used to refer to either the ROC or the territory it governs. The term China refers either to China (including mainland and Taiwan, sometimes called the two Chinas) or the PRC or the territory it governs. Taiwan can also refer to the island or islands, the PRC province or the ROC territory. But none of that means that there is a de jure sovereign state called Taiwan. TFD (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you desist from asserting that China includes mainland and Taiwan, which is a strong POV. And it is objectionable as well to assert that Taiwan is the ROC's territory. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

But the ROC currently governs there. its Either the PRC's or the ROCs since no other countries claim it. and both countries consider themselves china hence the names Republic of China and People's Republic of China — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehighwayman5 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because a polity is governing a territory does not mean it has sovereignty over the territory. Portugal did not have sovereignty over Macau when it was governing Macau. The US did not have sovereignty over the Ryukyu Islands when it was governing the Ryukyu Islands. There are opinions that the sovereignty over Taiwan has been undetermined/unsettled since 1952 and that the ROC is just governing Taiwan as a military occupation on behalf of the Allies of World War II. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

a polity governing an area is the definition of De facto Sovereignty and thus qualifies as a kind of sovereignty. there can be multiple De jure sovereignties; one De jure sovereignty gives Taiwan to the PRC while one gives it to the ROC. its an uncontroversial statement to say China has sovereignty over Taiwan Thehighwayman5 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The use of "de facto" already tells everyone that the polity does not actually have sovereignty (over the area) and is just exercising jurisdiction (over the area). And some scholars do not use "de jure" like that so your notion of "de jure sovereignty" is debatable. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

thats not what the words/phrases de facto, sovereignty, and jurisdiction, and de jure mean in an academic sense when talking about states and international law. I don't really want to get into an argument explaining terms so I suggest you read the associated wikipedia articles, their citations, and possibly textbooks if you're interested in the enlightenment era development of the concept of sovereignty and the reason's for its development in light of the centralization of states and diminishing of noble's traditional power at that time. take care Thehighwayman5 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Owennson: Misplaced Pages generally refers with both geographical definition and ROC (since ROC is only governing Taiwan and a few islands). And per WP:COMMONNAME, we generally refer to it as "Taiwan", and this usage is still valid on other articles like this.Ahmetlii (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ahmetlii:, Then shame on Misplaced Pages for passing such nonsense consensus.--owennson (Meeting Room、Certificates) 12:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment this is getting pretty far afield for a Misplaced Pages talk page where someone wants to add or change things. This conversation is more like a blog conversation which a Misplaced Pages talk page is not. Please finish this up or make a specific proposal that can be decided on by Misplaced Pages editors. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus on the question of whether Taiwan is a country or not

Why do people claim there has been a consensus reached? There are plenty of people who disagree.

The dispute also was never whether "Taiwan is a country or state". The question is whether Taiwan is a county of Fujian province as claimed by the PRC (which is a claim recognized by the UN and supported by the vast majority of UN member states) or whether it is a sovereign country. It's impressive how anti-Chinese propagandists are so organized in spinning narratives on Misplaced Pages two twist reality in their favour. Is there a whole CIA brigade cooperating with Taiwanese editors or something? This was never a hot topic until very recently, nobody in their right minds would ever question PRC sovereign claims over Taiwan but under Trump it became one of American propagandists' favourite topic to play with.

There clearly is no community consensus. There might be a perceived tyrannical majority due to the population bias of the English language Misplaced Pages community, however, I would dispute even that. The arguments in favour of Taiwan being a country are flimsy and I have yet to see a good one. The arguments against Taiwan being a coutnry are overwhelming and have not been addressed. For example: Nathan Rich has outlined his arguments quite clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKf9LWA4Wo Yet opposing Misplaced Pages editors' main argument against all the clear arguments made by Rich was: "I believe Nathan Rich is paid by the Chinese government"

It must be clearly stated in the article that this is an ongoing academic dispute. It must also be stated that no other region on the planet that is similar to Taiwan (neither today nor in history) was ever called a country. It must also be clearly stated that the vast majority of country on earth does not recognize Taiwan as a country. It must also be clearly explained that there is a concerted propaganda effort by Taiwan and its allies to spread this narrative. This is literally a dispute between a Western anti-Chines propaganda narrative and official Chinese claims which are supported by the UN. As such, there MUST NOT be a "consensus" on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, there is already a section on this page discussing this topic, so I don't know why you are creating yet another one. Second, your conspiratorial tone about the intentions of editors holding different views only serves to discredit you, since you obviously have a political agenda to push, and are not in the least bit motivated by the need to keep the article neutral and academic. Third, using a Nathan Rich video as a source IS indeed questionable, just as using a blatant anti-China channel such as China Uncensored also isn't appropriate. I get that not every source is going to unbiased on Misplaced Pages, but we should strive to maintain minimum standards to at least seek out reputable and trustworthy sources. Fourth, the point about the UN is not as solid as you think it is, as the UN itself is a political organization and not the sole arbiter of what gets to be considered a country, because it that's the case, the article for the PRC should state that it only achieved its status as a country in 1971, when it was admitted to the UN. Lastly, this question has been settled by consensus already. Address the concerns that led to this consensus decision, otherwise you're just wasting your time. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, this section of the article relies directly on the premise of there being consensus. There absolutely isn't any consensus on this topic. As there is no consensus, any argument based on the claim that there is consensus is automatically invalid. Second, your personal attacks aren't an argument. My tone doesn't discredit me. Third, there is nothing questionable about using a Nathan Rich video and is, in fact, more credible than using any capitalist media outlet or any government with leading positions participating in Western government organizations. People are regularly citing sources such as the BBC, New York Times and other Western government/capitalist sources, which should clearly not be considered reliable, unbiased or in any other way credible when it comes questions related to socialism or any topic concerning a country outside of Five Eyes. Blindly dismissing a video by Nathan Rich as a source isn't an argument and doesn't address the content of the source. What isn't reputable or trustworthy about Nathan Rich and his well-researched documentation? Fourth, if the UN isn't a reliable source on this, nothing is, which only serves as support for my argument that there is no consensus. Feel free to add your comment about the PRC to the PRC article, it is totally irrelevant to this article. Lastly, this question is clearly not settled as there are clearly lots of people who disagree. What arguments in favour of this decisions haven't been sufficiently addressed, yet? I agree with you that there is no need to repeat what has already been documented. Therefore, please address the arguments made by Nathan Rich, which haven't yet been addressed on this talk page, yet. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Nathan Rich's opinion matters just as much as anyone else's and Nathan Rich has fully supported his position with facts and citations, including from Misplaced Pages

Jargo Nautilus Jargo Nautilus (talk) has provided nothing but personal attacks and bad faith arguments (just like most people who wants to call Taiwan a country, by the way) to support his position that Nathan Rich should be disregarded. Neither is there any evidence whatsoever that Nathan Rich is a state-sponsored propagandist, nor would that invalidate anything he said. Here is an easy way to counter this argument: "I believe Jargo Nautilus is a state-sponsored propagandist of the US capitalist, war criminal regime." There you go. The conversation about this topic has now been concluded. Meanwhile, the arguments of Nathan Rich are very clear and very convincing and trump anything I have seen peopel say in favour of Taiwan being a country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKf9LWA4Wo I will revert this misleading manipulation of Misplaced Pages to push sinophobic political narratives and remove all examples of the claim that "Taiwan is a country" other than that it's an ongoing debate. Taiwan, objectively, is not a country and all attempts to spin this narrative by claiming it as a fact on this article should be considered vandalism and I will report it as such. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not an ongoing debate, the RfC was closed, and you don't get to unilaterally decide what vandalism is. DrIdiot (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you believe an RFC concludes the dispute? There clearly is an ongoing dispute. I am disputing it, after all, so are a few hundred million Chinese people. As I have not yet seen any credible argument supporting the claim that Taiwan is a country, that hasn't been reasonably disputed, there still is a dispute and I going to keep disputing it until there is a conclusive, academic answer that is no longer reasonably disputed. Where's the documentation of that RFC? I cannot find it anywhere. Where is the documentation, so I can reopen the debate and dispute any claims made and verify the provided evidence? The RfC in question openly admits that it was decided by a counting of personal opinions of less than 40 editors. There is zero academic merit to this. As Misplaced Pages is an educational resource and has political significance, this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Reality mustn't be up for a vote. There most be clear academic sources to support the view without reasonable opposition existing to the country to make a definite claim. As there is dispute, there is dispute. Don't know why there is dispute about that. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the RfC in question is linked here. Even though your behavior is borderline uncivil, and you are ignoring the other discussions on this talk page, I will try to respond to your "arguments".

• There clearly is an ongoing dispute.. You are correct. This matter is indeed highly contentious. However, when there is dispute, there needs to be discussion, and the RfC from May 2020 is exactly that. However, you are incorrect on that consensus is based on counting the number of opinions alone; the strength of argument is taken into account. User:Hobit's closing notice on the RfC sums it up nicely: "As far as strength of arguments go, the arguments were extremely varied and challenging to weigh. The basic arguments come down to "what is commonly used" and "what is the most accurate". We have agreement that most nations don't recognize Taiwan as an independent country, and people pointing that out tended to use that as an argument for "state". While there is some dispute, it seems that most of the media refers to Taiwan as a country and not a state, e.g. and we have no real dispute about if Taiwan is de facto a country (has an army, currency, navy, passport, internet TLD, telephone country code, etc.) There were also concerns about what is most clear to our readers. People raising that issue generally felt country would be more clear to the US audience. Taking all of that into account, I don't see the strength of argument in favor of "state" being strong enough to overcome the numeric consensus (in fact I'd say country has a stronger argument). If you think that this consensus would change now, you are free to discuss or open another RfC. Just don't expect people to value your opinion more than others.
• I have not yet seen any credible argument supporting the claim that Taiwan is a country There are plenty of arguments here on this talk page and its 32 archives. If you can't even see them, you are unwilling to even consider an argument that is not your own.
• People are regularly citing sources such as the BBC, New York Times and other Western government/capitalist sources, which should clearly not be considered reliable This statement alone makes me question the validity of your arguments. With it, you are advocating that state-sponsored propaganda of a country, which actively suppresses the freedom of the press, should be given precedence to independent news organizations. This sentiment goes against the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages.
• Reality mustn't be up for a vote. Yes, it must not be. It is ironic that you mention this. Your "source", the Nathan Rich video, mentions that "there's only one government of China". Which obviously is not reality, as China exerts no governmental power in Taiwan. So Mr. Rich is either arguing not Taiwan is not part of China (which he is not), or he is disproving his own argument.

I could go on, but to be honest, we are arguing against a wall here. Nothing we say will change your mind, and with statements like that, nothing you say will be productive to the discussion here. intforce (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

As you've said, based on their behaviour I'm certain nothing said will ever progress the flow of the discussion, after all they're clearly not actually here to build an encyclopedia, so my recommendation would be to move on, there's probably more productive things actually worth doing instead. Continuing to engage is not only futile, but also a waste of your time and everyone else's time; per WP:Misplaced Pages is not about winning, "winning" here makes zero difference. If they're confident enough to change Misplaced Pages consensus, they would have formally initiated a new WP:RFC already, but they haven't. Just like everyone else on this talk page, I'm still waiting on my CIA payment cheque to come in the mail (they sure are taking an unusually long time, I'm guessing it's due to the recent unrest in DC), so if you're also waiting on your late CIA payment, why not take a break instead. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Just pointing out the user AmericanPropagandaHunter has made zero contributions to Misplaced Pages as of this writing other than posting on talk pages. DrIdiot (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I do want to point out that there are many Western WP:RS media outlets that mention that the state of Taiwan is disputed. Not all media outlets assert that Taiwan is a country. Obviously, using Chinese state media such as CCTV would not be a reliable source in this case, because of the obvious conflict of interest. Félix An (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Taiwan is part of People's Republic of China instead of a sovereign country. Yuchenssun (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Closed. Not a proper edit request. No proposed changes given. intforce (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The founding day of the Republic of China on Misplaced Pages misleads the Google search engine.

Since we all know that Google uses the English version of Misplaced Pages as their reference to their quick search title.

For example, by the time Oct.11 2020, if you enter "中華民國建國/成立", the founding of the Republic of China in Mandarin, it will show that the founding date is December 7, 1949. This is obviously wrong since we all know that the ROC is founded on Oct.10 1911(Wuchang Uprising) or constitutionally, Jan. 1 1912. For more information, please refer to National Day of the Republic of China. And I have to address that the public on the Formosa island is furry due to this error. here, here, and here.

As we can see, if we define the title of this page that is meant to introduce the Republic of China nowadays lousily as "Taiwan", it will shame the whole wiki community.

I proposed that we should integrate all the related pages of the Republic of China into this one since pages like Republic of China (1912–1949) constitutionally inherited by the ROC government now on the islands of Formosa.

Misplaced Pages is one of the most referenced "fact check" on the internet, every action in our community may arouse huge issues. We have to be clear about this.鬼米 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC) 鬼米: You wouldn't say "all of us". We know that Taiwan was founded in December 7, 1949. So obviously it needs to be back. --テリヤキ (Talk With Me) 00:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't know what happened there, but I get the correct date. —Kusma (t·c) 08:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Google corrected this error in the morning of Oct.12 GMT+8 by source their quick search to History of the Republic of China. So I assume that this problem is now a part of the section "RfC: Taiwan's official name" in this talk. 鬼米 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no problem at all now. All is perfect as it should be unless someone tries to do something "lousily" strange. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@テリヤキ: There is no such thing as "Taiwan was founded in December 7, 1949". If you are referring to the ROC, it was founded on January 1, 1912. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: All is based on opinions, not how we know. So that means that not just because that you and the others think it is; I am from Japan, so I might not think that The Republic of China was founded in January 1, 1912 is correct. --テリヤキ (Talk With Me) 15:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It was founded in January 1, 1912, and that is a fact. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Claims over the mainland

The map description of the claims the ROC is currently "Show map of Taiwan (dark green) with ROC constitutional territorial claims as interpreted by the Kuomintang". While I have no doubt that this is the official Kuomintang position on the issue, by what I can tell it is not ONLY a Kuomintang claim, but in fact the claims over the mainland are still in force and have not been changed. At the very least, I could not find any reference for any change in national borders regarding the issue. As such, I do think that the description is a bit misleading, and as a consequence I propose that we change the description to "Show map of Taiwan (dark green) with ROC constitutional territorial claims". That being said however, should anybody show me evidence to the contrary, I will withdraw this proposal. JadeEditor (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• A decision requires looking at how reliable sources describe the claims. I think there's a bit too much back-and-forth (both on this matter and in previous discussions) that involve editors' personal interpretations of matters.I suppose that right now, the as interpreted by the Kuomintang part of the caption is technically unreferenced.There are plenty of RSes that simply state the claims without mentioning the KMT, for instance:

  The ROC constitution, meanwhile, still claims Taiwan, China, Mongolia, and the entire South China Sea as its territory
  — Article from The Atlantic, July 2019

  How common are modern RSes statements that the ROC constitutional claims to the mainland are only the interpretation of the KMT? A comparison of RS prevalence would be very useful here.— MarkH₂₁ 02:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The dispute of the scope of the constitutional claims is described in the book. . The article is written by one of the incumbent Justices (大法官).--Coco977 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @Coco977: Could you quote parts relevant to the inclusion of as interpreted by the Kuomintang? Thanks. — MarkH₂₁ 02:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
      • The issue is, there are different viewpoints on the scope of the territorial claims. WP:WIKIVOICE suggests that opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Everybody would agree that Kuomintang's interpretion of the constitutional claims includes the mainland. If we remove as interpreted by the Kuomintang we are stating opinions as facts and stating seriously contested assertions as facts. --Coco977 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I understand that point, but we would still need reliable sources that support that this is a seriously contested assertion and that it is an opinion generally attributed to the KMT. Prominence in reliable sources is what determines how significant viewpoints are represented on Misplaced Pages per WP:WEIGHT. — MarkH₂₁ 03:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
          • The reliable sources that support that this is a seriously contested assertion is the book I linked. I don't insist on the specific wording of attributing it to the KMT, if you don't like it we could find some other ways to describe it.--Coco977 (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
            • It would be helpful for you to quote specific parts of the book (it's 280 pages after all). We also need to consider the literature on the topic as a whole, because one reliable source in either direction is just a drop in the bucket.I don't have any formed thoughts on the wording yet, I think that we need to gather more sources first to see how the situation is most commonly described in RSes. — MarkH₂₁ 03:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
              • Page 18 and 19. Also if we want to strictly look at the sources, the source you provided is not sufficient to support the boundaries depicted in the map, for example we can't tell if Jiangxinpo should be included in the territorial boundaries from that source.Coco977 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem is, there is literally no part of the ROC constitution that describes in geographical terms what the territory of the ROC actually is, all it says is that the national boundaries can't be changed without a decision to do so from the National Assembly. There is no part of the constitution that says "well, the borders are along this particular river, that particular mountain range, and those regions". This lies in contrast with the constitutions of other countries, such as the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which specifically define what the territorial boundaries are: "The territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean peninsula and its adjacent islands." The most that is ever mentioned within the ROC constitution is that there must be Tibetan and Mongolian delegates present within the National Assembly, Legislative Yuan, and Control Yuan, which in itself isn't actually a statement of where the national borders lie. This means that any suggestion that there are "constitutional" territorial claims is just as speculative than any suggestion that the claims to mainland China, Mongolia and Tannu Tuva are KMT interpretations of ROC territory. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Again, we need to look at the prevalence of as interpreted by the Kuomintang in RSes if that part of the caption is to be included (there needs to be at least one per WP:V and a significant proportion per WP:WEIGHT). There are independent secondary RSes that explicitly state that those territories are claimed by the ROC Constitution without mentioning the KMT. The question is, how common are RSes directly supporting the part of the caption that is under consideration here? I genuinely don't know at the moment, we will need to do a thorough search. — MarkH₂₁ 02:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Its the KMTs position under the "1992 Consensus". Former KMT President Ma has made it clear that it is also his position that "mainland China is the territory of the Republic of China". Compare that to DPPs position: "The Democratic Progressive Party does not agree with the "One China principle" as defined by the KMT or Two Chinas. Instead, it has a different interpretation, and believes "China" refers only to People's Republic of China and states that Taiwan and China are two separate countries, therefore there is One Country on Each Side and "one China, one Taiwan". The DPP's position is that the people of Taiwan have the right to self-determination without outside coercion." The problem, as noted above, is that the ROC never actually defined its territory and does not have an official "one China" policy. It leaves these such topics up for interpretation by the respective political parties. Eclipsed830 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• The government of Taiwan wants a new constitution written by the people of Taiwan that says, "Taiwan is Taiwan, and not a part of China." When they do that, we can reconsider the constitutional position of the state. The reliable sources presented show that the "existing national boundaries" in the 1947 constitution refer to the boundaries recognized by the Republic of China at the time. The territory is defined in the Article 3 of the 1912 constitution: "The territory of the Chinese Republic consists of 22 provinces, Inner and Outer Mongolia, Tibet and Chinghai." The argument that the existing borders referred to whatever borders the state has at any given time makes no sense, because it would mean it did not require a constitutional amendment to change them. The 1947 constitution did not create a new country, it merely replaced the 1912 constitution, just as the 5th Republic in France merely replaced the Fourth Republic but did not create a new nation. TFD (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • TFD The problem is, going by that logic and assuming that the territory of the ROC is defined by Article 3 of the 1912 Constitution, Taiwan (Formosa) itself would not be included as part of the ROCs "existing national boundaries. As I have mentioned prior, the ROC Supreme Court stated that Article 4 of the ROC Constitution is for changing the existing national boundaries, but it did not define them. If you do not read Chinese, I would recommend using Google Translate on the ROC Supreme Courts opinion on the matter in interpretation 328. When the ROC Supreme Court was asked if Article 4 defined the territory, it essentially stated while Article 4 provided instructions for changing the territory, it did not define the territory itself and thus it is beyond the scope of judicial review. Essentially, that to define the ROC territory, it would need to be defined by the process detailed in Article 4 itself, as in its a political question, not a constitutional question. Eclipsed830 (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Eclipsed830, I read the opinion using google translate, but I have seen no mention of the opinion in any secondary sources about the constitution of Taiwan. Note that primary sources, such as court decisions, are open to interpretation, particularly about what force they have. Can you provide any reliable secondary source, not a partisan op-ed but something like a journal article or academic textbook that references this opinion? Also, even if Taiwan was not part of the ROC in 1912, it might have been legally incorporated into the state in 1945. The U.S. had a number of Supreme Court rulings c. 1900 about how foreign territories could become part of the country but could only be ceded through a constitutional amendment. Of course that doesn't mean that Chinese law is the same. TFD (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Please note that whether Taiwan was legally incorporated into the ROC in 1945 is in dispute. The US and the UK did not recognize the ROC's unilateral announcement of "Taiwan retrocession". --Matt Smith (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Their claim over mainland China is also disputed. The issue isn't international law but the domestic law of the ROC, which is not necessarily the same. The discussion is about what territories the Republic of China claims are part of the Republic of China. TFD (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to Taiwan, which you mentioned in your previous comment. And whether it's an issue of the domestic law of the ROC is also debatable. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue of this discussion is whether or not the Republic of China claims sovereignty over both the mainland and Taiwan. TFD (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Although being disputed, it does claim sovereignty over Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Description in reliable sources

I'll start an ongoing compilation of how reliable sources describe the ROC constitutional territorial claims. — MarkH₂₁ 03:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much time to do this right now, but anyone can start. @JadeEditor: you opened this section and suggested the change, so perhaps you already know of several? — MarkH₂₁ 09:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Attributed to the KMT

• (Quote needed) from (Book details needed)

03:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not attributed to the KMT

• The ROC constitution, meanwhile, still claims Taiwan, China, Mongolia, and the entire South China Sea as its territory
  — Article from The Atlantic, July 2019

That seems to border on an opinion piece and the line in question is a throwaway, I think we need a stronger source for that claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

03:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The View of Moving Article "Taiwan" to "Republic of China"

A few days ago, there was a suggestion of splitting the Taiwan article to the Republic of China article. That is a wise opinion.

I analyzed the article title. As you can see, Taiwan is an island on the North-western Pacific ocean, so I think the article title seems to tell us geography, but it isn't. The article tells us almost everything, including the geography of Taiwan. But just as I said, Taiwan is only an island in the Pacific where a de facto country on it. And that country is called the Republic of China, not Taiwan. So, in my opinion, it's wrong to write all things in the Taiwan article that isn't about geography. And, Taiwan Island is not all the territory of the Republic of China. It has other domains, for example, Pratas Island, Taiping Island, Kinmen, and Lienchiang. I think it's pretty inaccurate if you miss a country's territories when editing an article. So it's more likely to split the article into Geography of Taiwan and the Republic of China.

LeetGuy9915A (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, this topic and others related to it have been discussed many times in the past here. At the top of this page there is a place where one can search the Archives for such discussions. I recommend you search for Republic of China or similar using that tool and see some of these discussions. The reality is that such a change is not going to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As a suggestion, perhaps a FAQ is needed on the talk page given how repeatedly the discussion is brought up. That might cut down on the requests. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m not so sure how much it would cut this down, most appear to be from China. The fact remains that under Chinese law giving or showing any support to “separatist” Taiwan is a very serious crime, I don’t think its wise to expect people to disobey their domestic laws in order to abide by consensus. China has also made it very clear that they have a problem with how wikipedia covers the “Taiwan issue” which led to them blocking the WikiMedia Foundation from observer status at a UN body. We’re dealing with a system that raises people in an alternative reality and then makes it illegal for them to believe anything else, a FAQ cant counter that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

There was a FAQ box on the talk page with this addressed. I'm not sure what happened to it. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If they can't abide by Misplaced Pages consensus, perhaps they should stay off of Misplaced Pages? Or at least away from this page? --Khajidha (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Khajidha here. If they are afraid of violating their oh-so correct law, maybe they shouldn't come here at this talk page in the first place, trying to subvert well-established consensus. Why are they even editing here if they support the CCP, which is clearly hostile towards our community? pandakekok9 (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has happened multiple times within the month or two. The term "Taiwan" generally includes much more than just the main island which historically was called Formosa in English. For example Penghu was considered part of the old "Taiwan Province" despite the Pescadores Islands being an entirely different archipelago. Even the official address for the government of Lienchiang County (Matsu) lists the country as "Taiwan (ROC)": "No.76, Jieshou Village, Nangan Township, Lienchiang County 209, Taiwan (R.O.C.). Eclipsed830 (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Even though most people still call it Swaziland, the Swaziland article was quickly renamed to Eswatini. So why should the republic of China be called Taiwan here if the official name is republic of China? --Jausenbrot (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you got your information that Swaziland is most used; most news outlets use eSwatini, and most people who talk about the country in the first place are likely to know that it is renamed to eSwatini. But regardless, see WP:Other stuff exists. Zoozaz1 talk 03:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Just because media uses it and the people know it was renamed, that doesnt mean most people use the new name. Most people - including me - still use swaziland, mostly because it just sounds a lot more familiar. But it was absolutely correct to rename the article. So please, even though I know the communist chinese propaganda is trying hard to delegitimize the republic of china and to push their "one china policy", this article should be moved.--Jausenbrot (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan is basiically just a colloquialism, the article for the country Republic of North Macedonia (which mostly goes by the name Macedonia both internationally and nationally) is called its official name so why should the Republic of China/Taiwan be any different?PailSimon (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The title of that article is actually North Macedonia. DrIdiot (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The point is to use the common name per WP:COMMONNAME. If you think Macedonia is a better common name than North Macedonia, then I suggest you take it up with the talk page on that article. DrIdiot (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

My point stíll stands. Nobody calls it 'North Macedonia', people, especially the inhabitants, call it just 'Macedonia' despite it not having any official status. So there appears to be major double standard here.PailSimon (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

And almost nobody calls it the Republic of China... Just look , they're almost an order of magnitude apart. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh I'm aware. What's that got to do with anything I said though?PailSimon (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You tell me, I’m not the one on a tangent about post-yugoslav states I’m just enjoying it. To me the Macedonians will always be FYROM as thats what they went by on the net when I was first exposed to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who drew the comparison. Its not up to me to explain to you your own arguments.PailSimon (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Lol I did? That must have been a long time ago, I don’t remember. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Any my point still stands. WP:COMMONNAME is clear. Take it up with the people on the North Macedonia page. DrIdiot (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change Republic of China back to Taiwan. If you search Misplaced Pages on Taiwan Passport, notice it says "Taiwan Passport". If you look at language or Google reference or address look up, it's always referenced as "Taiwan". When you land in Taiwan International Airport, it says "Welcome to Taiwan" Alphajun (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alphajun: Which instance of "Republic of China" are you referring to? Is it the infobox? That's normal. We always use official name for the heading of the infobox (see Vietnam and Philippines for examples). pandakekok9 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Tibetan, Zhuang, Mongolian, Uyghur and Manchu names

For background context, back in August 2009 I was the original creator of the 中華民國 names infobox, albeit on a completely different article: Names of China. Roughly some time after 2012 (in which I'm too lazy to be bothered to actually look up the details), someone copied the names infobox to the Taiwan article, and then added Tibetan, Zhuang, Mongolian, Uyghur and Manchu languages to it as well. Surely we can remove these additional languages from the infobox? I don't see how their inclusion benefits the reader in any specific way, other than to add to further confusion, and take up a lot of space along the right-hand margin. Taiwan (or rather, the Taiwan-Penghu-Kinmen-Matsu Area of the ROC, for you perfectionists) does not administer any Tibetan, Zhuang or Mongol administrative divisions, nor is Taiwan home to any sizeable population of Tibetan, Zhuang or Mongolian speakers. If there's any place where this information should be kept, it would probably make more sense to move it to Republic of China (1912–1949), rather than keeping it here at the Taiwan article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur. BushelCandle (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the two vertical language templates should be removed and merged with the matching template on Names of China. In addition to the above, they really mess with this article's formatting. CMD (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. One possible source of justification for this is the Taiwan national languages development act, which defines a national language as any language used by an ethnic group on Taiwan (includes Matsu/Kinmen). See also languages allowed for use in passports (Mando, Hoklo, Hakka, Formosan). One interesting project might be to add infoboxes for the Formosan names! DrIdiot (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, I see some of them are already in the "Taiwan" infobox. Would it be too controversial to just move the entire ROC names infobox to Republic of China (1912–1949)? E.g. China does not have an infobox either... and one can make the same argument for removing Yue, Wu, Gan, etc. names for ROC from the infobox too. DrIdiot (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not move them to Republic of China (1912–1949), I recently removed similar ones which were just destroying the formatting. CMD (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, was not going to, I like the idea of merging with Names of China as suggested above as well. DrIdiot (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, I already went and merged the ROC infobox on this page into the ROC infobox in Names of China. What are we proposing to remove from the infobox on this page? Proposal: (1) Uyghur, Mongolian, Tibetan names, (2) Chinese names that aren't Hakka or South/East Min, (3) the entire "China" column, since no one uses just "China" to refer to ROC or Taiwan ("China" more or less exclusively refers to PRC now). DrIdiot (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on gauging preliminary sentiment here, I've just removed the Tibetan, Zhuang, Mongolian and Uyghur names from the language infobox. In the meantime, I'll wait for everyone to come to a decision on what to do with the Sinitic names for ROC, and the Sinitic + Austronesian Aboriginal names for Taiwan. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that the aboriginal names are also included in the footnote linked from the first line and the main infobox name. CMD (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't making a proposal re: the names of Taiwan. My two proposals are (1) also remove non-Min/Hakka/Mandarin Sinitic languages from the ROC infobox using the same justification for removing the Tibetan etc. names and (2) remove "China" from the ROC infobox because China is not a common name for the ROC anymore, which is what is relevant for the article on Taiwan. DrIdiot (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the boxes as I suggested above (now the Fort Zealandia image appears next to the Fort Zealandia text!). The various Sinitic translations and transliterations appear to be present at the comprehensive box on Names of China, while the aboriginal names are present in the lead/infobox footnote. CMD (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

One-China Policy

Regarding this edit

Are wikipedians who edit this article really so rudimentarily uneducated on Taiwan that they are not even aware that most states adhere to a One-China Policy? Misplaced Pages's own article on the topic itself has a map which shows which states support the One China Policy and the text of the article further asserts it.

There's also of course sources 1 2 which states such a thing but this is pretty much WP:SKYISBLUE and it is astonishing that I have to write this. It's like asking an astronomer to prove the Sun exists..... PailSimon (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A wikipedia page about the solar system does in fact have to include a citation for the statement that the sun exists. Thats just how wikipedia works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So you're not going to make a substantive reply then?PailSimon (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That was a substantive reply. Neither of those sources include the statement you wish to insert into the article or substantially equivalent ones. Also the Brookings piece is an op-ed, it wouldnt be usable even if it did support that statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

BTW we really cant be making statements in the lead that aren’t in the body even if they’re impeccably sourced... Especially such strong ones. Try editing the section about their diplomatic position and then we can talk about changing up the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You have rather conveniently completing ignored the fact that the One-China Policy article lays out everything I have said with innumerable sourcing.

Regardless, regarding the two sources I provided here, the Brookings Institution is considered a reliable source (ubiquitously used in wikipedia) and is immensely reputable, as it's own wikipedia article points out it is the most cited think tank in the USA. As well as this the publication in question is written by renowned academic expert Bates Gill so clearly quite reliable. It is also not an op-ed which is a newspaper term (BI is not a newspaper) and refers to an article published in the opinion section of news publications so evidently you don't know the meaning of that term.

As for the BBC source it states: "Although Taiwan's government claims it is an independent country officially called the "Republic of China", any country that wants diplomatic relations with mainland China must break official ties with Taipei.....Taiwan is not recognised as an independent country by much of the world nor even the United Nations"

The Brookings Institution source states: "The “one China” principle is one of the few major areas of this dispute upon which all parties can officially agree." PailSimon (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the statements you just quoted support the point you’re trying to make... This appears to have been explained to you in depth by DrIdiot below. Go look at the Brookings piece again and then tell me it doesn't say "OP-ED The Meaning of “”One China”” Bates Gill Thursday, March 23, 2000” at the top... I know it does because I just copy-pasted it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Putting aside the petty squabbling over sourcing and your selective responses, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 states that the PRC is "the only legitimate government of China" i.e the One China Policy. This really could not conceivably be any clearer.PailSimon (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would we put aside you making wild and unsupported claims as well as claims about my personal competency i.e. an WP:NPA issue? It could be clearer, a WP:RS could actually say it... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Because the UN Resolution I just linked makes things unambiguously clear that is why.PailSimon (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The UN resolution contains no mention of the op-ed from 2000. You do now agree that its an op-ed right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

More selective responses.... PailSimon (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m just trying to clarify things you yourself said. I didn’t force you to say them. If you don’t want to participate in this discussion thats fine but you can’t just be obstinate and break down when you get proven wrong. Acknowledge that you were wrong and move on, I’m sure there are non-op-ed non-decades old sources you can find which will make an argument closer to what you want them to (although I remain skeptical that you will be able to find any that say exactly what you want them to). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You dont understand Cross-Strait relations or international diplomacy so its no my job to give you a crash course on it.PailSimon (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA please keep the discussion focused on content and not editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Except that's not what the one china policy says, according to any of your sources. This is the problem with the term. You keep moving the goalposts but actually there are no goalposts. DrIdiot (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@DrIdiot: Could you explain why you think the sources define it differently?PailSimon (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"Agree/assert" vs. "acknowledge", and PRC is China vs. only one of ROC or PRC is China. DrIdiot (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the meaningful difference in this case between agree/assert and acknowledge? The One China Principle is not necessarily pro-PRC, its something that both pro-PRC and pro-ROC agree on as the 1992 consensus exemplifies, there are different versions of it but its fundamentally the assertion that there is only one legitimate government of 'China'.PailSimon (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is literally the point of one china policy vs principle, see the wiki page. Also, I think you have principle and policy mixed up. See why this is a problem? DrIdiot (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean the edit reverted talked about the One China Policy and I've only ever referred to it. Either way its a cornerstone of the diplomatic dispute and bizarre not to mention it.PailSimon (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

First, drop the condescending tone. Second, "one China policy" means different things in different contexts ("acknowledge" vs. "accept"). It's not meaningful to say "most states adhere to a one China policy" if the content of that policy differs between states. Third, the One-China Policy page certainly does not have content for "most" states. Fourth, your BBC source does not justify your claim, it is a description of a PRC position. Fifth, Bill Gates is writing an op-ed, I am confused why you think it is not an op-ed since it literally says so on the top of the article. Honestly, this feels a bit like bad faith. DrIdiot (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

With regards to your second point I would agree that it should be clarified that 'One China Policy' is a flexible policy applied differently by differing states and the article lead should stipulate that, in fact I would argue that it already does. So we are in agreement on that point. Regarding your third point, the map in the lead I think backs me up here, regarding the BBC source please see my reply to Horse Eye's Back above. Regarding the Brookings Institution source please again see my reply to Horse Eye's Back above.PailSimon (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the definition in the lead in One-China policy is problematic -- is there a source that defines it explicitly? Because the BBC article says something different. I am against inserting this kind of nebulous term into the lead of an article (or elsewhere, for that matter, without a lengthy explanation). All these arguments and sources are pointless because people can't even agree on the definition. Is this term ever even used outside of the US context? DrIdiot (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

For example, the BBC source only says that one China policy is an acknowledgement of the Chinese position, which is weaker ("assert" vs "acknowledge") than what is in the lead there. DrIdiot (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

OK I want to state my position and exit the discussion, since I think it is going in circles. Ultimately, I am against putting this in there unless someone finds an authoritative definition of one China policy corroborated by multiple sources and demonstrates that most states follow a policy that falls under that definition. Without that, I oppose the change. DrIdiot (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The BBC article defines it quite clearly I think.PailSimon (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There are major countries which avoid using conclusive words when they are referring to Taiwan's status, as explained in the first paragraph of the "Diplomatic relations" section of the One-China policy article. The United States is one of them. The Unite States said in its joint communiqué with the PRC on the establishment of diplomatic relation that it "recognizes" the Government of the PRC as the sole legal Government of China and "acknowledges" (which is a flexible word) the PRC's position that Taiwan is part of China.

And a 2007 source said more than 100 countries in the world did not mention Taiwan at all in their joint communiqués with the PRC on the establishment of diplomatic relations. The source can be found in the lede of the Chinese version of the One-China policy article. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what the other contributors are saying. "One China" itself is very ambiguous and doesn't really mean anything without context. Using the United States for example, the "one China policy" generally refers to the three U.S.-PRC joint communiques, but the three joint communiques do not take a specific position on Taiwan. That is often why you hear the State Department say things such as "in accord with the U.S. one-China policy that is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-PRC joint communiques, and the Six Assurances to Taiwan,". If you want to say something along the lines of many states have a "one China policy", you should/would have to define each states position on the matter, as a consensus on the exact definition of the term does not exist. Eclipsed830 (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The basic meaning of the One China policy can be summed up as follows: "Okay guys, we all know that Taiwan is a separate country, but China gets really pissy when you say that, so just say things to humor their delusions while effectively treating Taiwan as a separate country in all meaningful ways." --Khajidha (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Zhuyin

What is Zhuyin, and should it be included in the infobox? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The tricky thing is Taiwan is unique in this regard. It's most common language, Mandarin, has a separate transcription system (for phonetic transcription of ideograms) vs. romanization system (for approximating the sounds in the Roman alphabet). Zhuyin is far more common than pinyin in Taiwan for the former use. I believe this is not true in any other country, since in all other countries with ideogram languages, the two coincide. In either case, I think the Pinyin and Zhuyin can be removed for the national flag anthem and national anthem, they really add nothing. DrIdiot (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

While Zhuyin might be helpful on the Chinese Misplaced Pages (since it's the primary phonetic transcription method for ideographs used in Taiwan), I don't think it's beneficial for English readers. Across various Misplaced Pages articles about non-English topics, we generally provide a native language name, along with a transcription/transliteration in Latin script to assist English readers if the native name is not written in Latin, so that they have an idea of how it's pronounced. Zhuyin isn't generally used as a script to convey information in Taiwan, it's more of an assistive phonetic guide, for example in school textbooks; I don't think Zhuyin usage on this article counts as a "native language name". --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Not recognised by the UN" should be stated in the first paragraph

An editor quickly reverted my edit, I hereby follow the BRD process.

• The essential fact: The Republic of China (being an old state of China) is not recognised by the UN (because the world community chose to recognise the new state of China which is the People's Republic of China).
• My suggestion: In the first paragraph, we should clarify Taiwan's status immediately after the description "Taiwan is a country" by stating that the Republic of China is not recognised by the UN.

STSC (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Zoozaz1 in that your proposed change does not integrate well with the lead paragraph. UN membership and the political status of Taiwan are complex issues and are better explained in context. The lead devotes an entire paragraph to them, as an isolated statement like yours looks awkward and leaves many open questions. intforce (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not at all "not integrate well". Look at the State of Palestine article which is very well presented by stating their status with the UN in the first paragraph. STSC (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your essential fact is not actually a fact but this is not the place for a WP:FORUM discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"The Republic of China is not recognised by the UN" is not a fact? You're just pointing at a deer to call it's a horse! STSC (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure thats not what you’re doing? Thats barely a third of what you said was the essential fact. If you will allow me a modicum of levity: You appear to be a thief calling out to catch thief. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So, you're not happy with these?... "The Republic of China is an old state of China (established in 1911), and the world community chose to recognise the new state of China which is the People's Republic of China (established in 1949)". These are the plain facts, I cannot see why you have the difficulty to accept them? STSC (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Those are different facts than you enumerated before, you keep changing what you say are the “plain facts.” Whether or not you recognize that these statements you’re making are not substantially equivalent is another question. I see no way in which this tangent helps us make the page better, you seem to want to argue semantics but you cant keep your own semantics straight. Have a wonderful day, I wish you the best. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. essential fact: The Republic of China (being an old state of China) is not recognised by the UN (because the world community chose to recognise the new state of China which is the People's Republic of China). That's very wordy. Do you mean The Republic of China is not recognised by the UN? Is not recognised *as what*? As a country? As an island? As a nation state? As of the five permanent members of the security council? There is nuance and context. My reading of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 is the the "not recognised" is directed to certain representatives of China. It's too much to squeeze into a lede everything that the topic is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph four does the job. "The political status of Taiwan remains uncertain. The ROC is no longer a member of the UN, having been replaced by the PRC in 1971." I have an urge to copy-edit "remains uncertain". they are not useful words. Perhaps "is complicated". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC). Edit done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Paragraph four does not "do the job". It is extremely misleading to bury the information so far down the article. A country with a comparable level of recognition, probably more, is Kosovo. The opening sentence in that page is: "Kosovo (/ˈkɒsəvoʊ, ˈkoʊ-/; Template:Lang-sq or Kosovë, pronounced or ; Serbian Cyrillic: Косово, pronounced ), officially the Republic of Kosovo (Template:Lang-sq; Template:Lang-sr), is a partially-recognised state and disputed territory in Southeastern Europe." This article should be similarly prompt in getting to the point, and it should also link to the related articles in the lead as "see also" or in the opening sentence or two like that does. Irtapil (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The UN and most countries do not recognise "Republic of China" as a country that's why they don't establish their embassies in Taiwan. Exactly because of Taiwan's uncertain status we need to clarify it after saying Taiwan is a country in the first paragraph. STSC (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that is not true, "as a country" is not true. The UN and most countries do not recognise "Republic of China" as a "nation-state", or "sovereign state". "Country" is a different sort of word, not tied hard to politics, but in large part to the land itself. This talk page has discussed this word at length over the last year. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Read https://www.etymonline.com/word/country to get a feel for this word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I said "as a country" in layman's terms. The fact is the same: The ROC is not recognised by the UN. Ideally this should be put in the first paragraph. STSC (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The layman term "country" found consensus as the simple descriptor for the lede sentence. As a matter of writing style for the comprehensibility for a reader, on any topic whatsoever, the text should say what something *is*, and avoid defining something by what it *is not*, and especially this applies to the lede paragraph. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to presume that the laymen think about UN membership when they hear the word "country". And not every fact belongs in the first paragraph. DrIdiot (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The United Nations is a group of members, but the United Nations itself does not have the power to recognize individual states, 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." UN Resolution 2758 removed CKS (although technically he quit the UN before the vote) and thus the ROC as the representative of "China", but it did not determine a final position of sovereignty or representation over Taiwan... Just that the KMT no longer represents the "China" seat. Eclipsed830 (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph four already does the job. I'm not convinced that we should clarify it immediately on the first paragraph. pandakekok9 (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: We're thinking too lowly of our readers if we believe that they'd struggle to read past four paragraphs, and that the way to resolve our readers' perceived lack of reading capability is to shoehorn into the first sentence an overly-simplified summary of an extremely complicated and nuanced problem. You're supposed to buy me dinner before you French kiss me; paragraph 1 is the dinner, and paragraph 4 is the French kiss. The current lede structuring is fine, and I don't see any benefit in rushing to mention Taiwan's diplomatic status so early within the lede, it disrupts the flow for the reader. If the reader wants to know, they'll know. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The primary rationale you give for adding the proposed text is to counter the claim that Taiwan is a country. Wiki uses RS to determine things, and consensus from RfC was that English language RS indicates we should refer to Taiwan as a country. The UN has nothing to do with it. It's status re:UN is mentioned in the opening a few paragraphs later. DrIdiot (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I remember the previous edition in the heading about two months ago with a description as "Taiwan is the largest economy and most populous country that is not a member of the UN." which has been removed due to the repeated information being restated in the latter paragraph... 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 nonrecognition 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 them more consistent?? lol 220.135.36.159 (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I don't deny Taiwan is a country, that is not the issue here, but Taiwan (ROC) is not a normal country like USA, China, Russia, etc. I think we should include its international status in the introduction paragraph as in the example of State of Palestine. Alternatively, the fourth paragraph can be integrated into the first paragraph. STSC (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Agree Lack of recognition by the world community is perhaps the most important thing about Taiwan. TFD (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Lack of recognition by the world community? It needs many words. The first, second and third paragraphs are packed with top-level summary facts, none of which are not recognized by anyone.

Reviewing the four lede paragraphs:

1. Geographical location, area, geography, major cities, population density;

2. Ancient history indigenous people; modern colonisations Dutch then Chinese; Qing, Empire of Japan, WWII. Chinese civil war...

3. 1960s economic growth; government, economic and social development

4. Political status.

Lack of recognition by the world community, from 1971, does not belong in the first paragraph. Everything in the first paragraph is simply true and immediately observable. Something more about the lack of recognition could be added at the end of paragraph 2. However, there is too much to say to put all of paragraph 4 into paragraph 2, and much of what is said overlaps with paragraph 3. Careful rearrangement of information between paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 is possible, but no, lack of recognition does not belong in paragraph 1. Some may obsess about the current political controversy of Taiwan, but for the general reader the political controversy does not precede the basic introduction to the country. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Being not recognised by 179 countries is absolutely important information within the introduction paragraph about a country. STSC (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, starting with the "nots" is poor communication. Not being recognised by a set of countries, no, UN member states, requires definition of the set of member nations, and begs information on the number that do support. This information not does not displace the information already in paragraph 1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Being "not recognized by 179 countries" in which ways exactly? It's a loaded statement... for example, the United States does not have "official diplomatic relations" with Taiwan, but their de jure position is that the government in Taiwan has control over Taiwan. You would need to clarify each individual states position out of those other 179 countries. Eclipsed830 (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no USA embassy in Taiwan. My point is: Taiwan is not recognised by most countries in the world; that is important information about Taiwan and it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. I think just stating "the ROC is not recognised by the UN" is sufficient. STSC (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As has been stated numerous times already, the UN is "neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government". Please listen. intforce (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, I already explained to you that the United Nations does not recognize countries or government... that is up to each individual member states. Literally no government or country is recognized by the United Nations. Each individual member state has a different position on the matter, and blanket statements such as the one you are trying to make do not belong in an introduction paragraph, especially without proper context. What do you mean by "not recognized by most countries"? Because diplomatic recognition can be accorded on either a de-facto or de-jure basis. As I stated, the United States does not have "official diplomatic relations" with Taiwan... instead the US-Taiwan relationship is based on de-jure law which defines its de-facto recognition. There is a de-facto US embassy in Taiwan that is fully funded and staffed by the US State Department, performing the same tasks with the same power as any other US Embassy. United States law, under the Taiwan Relations Act, defines Taiwan as: "“Taiwan” includes, as the context may require, the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores, the people on those islands, corporations and other entities and associations created or organized under the laws applied on those islands, and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities (including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof)." Do you not consider this de facto "recognition"? This is why context is important Eclipsed830 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

But we're talking about the official recognition in the normal sense. If a country does not establish an embassy in Taiwan (ROC), then that country does not officially recognise Taiwan (ROC). The majority of the countries within the UN organisation had voted to expel the ROC; so, the ROC is not recognised by the UN. I'm of course open to other wordings. STSC (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

First, I must repeat that the United Nations has zero ability to recognize states. It is simply an organization of members and has the same power to recognize independent states as the Major League Baseball organization. Secondly, your definition of "official recognition" becomes a loaded statement without proper context... if they don't recognize Taiwan, what is their position? Do they consider it part of the PRC? Do they have de-facto recognition? Etc. It is complicated, and would need a paragraph or section of its own, which it already has in the 4th paragraph. You could say something along the lines of "Taiwan is the largest sovereign state by population that is not a member of the United Nations.", But that doesn't really belong in an introduction statement either. Eclipsed830 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I accept "not recognised by the UN" (in layman's terms) may be technically incorrect. I suppose it's quite OK to say "Taiwan is not part of the UN" in the introduction. STSC (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the introduction though... the fourth paragraph in the introduction is dedicated to the topic. Eclipsed830 (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

People don't object to your wording. People object to your insistence that this is a a very very very important fact that cannot be left to paragraph 4, and you belief that it can be stated without counterbalance. DrIdiot (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

How about moving up the forth paragraph to be the second paragraph? STSC (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd say a brief history of Taiwan is more important than a discussion of geopolitical status. DrIdiot (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The claim that Taiwan's recognition by the UN is the first (narrowly construed) question people have when they want to know about Taiwan (and therefore belongs in the first paragraph) seems dubious to me, though somewhat unfalsifiable. The claim by that it's the most important thing about Taiwan is ridiculous. As for the more general question of recognition by the international community, as others have said this has a domino effect of followups: if you say not officially recognized, then you have to say de facto relations exist, and then you have to say what exactly those de facto relations are. In another direction, if you say not recognized, you have to say by who, and who does recognize, and why, and ROC vs. Taiwan, et cetera. In other words, you end up with the 4th paragraph. DrIdiot (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Just mention in one of the paragraphs further down within section zero, say the one on its political status, that its seat held in the name of the RoC was taken over by the People's Republic in 1971, pipe link GAR 2758. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee, follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood. (Opinion No 1., Badinter Arbitration Committee, states that "the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty" and that "the effects of recognition by other states are purely declaratory.") 220.135.36.159 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Further comment: It appears that the recognition of Taiwan has become an issue here. I'd compromise and rephrase my suggestion: In the introduction paragraph, we should include Taiwan's international status immediately after "Taiwan... is a country" by stating that "the ROC is not part of the UN". STSC (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, as writing it as if it was a legitimate country seems to be pushing a pro-Taiwan independence POV. Félix An (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's a legitimate country, it is just not recognized de jure by most countries. I don't see any violation of NPOV here. Your concern of a "pro-Taiwan independence POV" has already been answered by the second and fourth paragraphs. pandakekok9 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose For most of the reasons above, the UN does not recognize states, ROC at one time was actually a security council member, so any text has to take these things into account.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC about Taiwan in the first paragraph of its article

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In the article Taiwan, should the first paragraph contain the international status of Taiwan (Republic of China)? STSC (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: , , , , , , , )

Canvassing is allowed per "Publicizing an RfC". (Funny enough, I have notified user Zoozaz who reverted my edit in the first place but he/she isn't bothered to turn up here.) STSC (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I would point out the RfC is asking a question. Therefore, the editors' responses are classified as follows:

Support = Yes, it should.
Oppose = No, it should not.

STSC (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes - Taiwan is not a normal country within the world community. I think it's quite reasonable to include Taiwan's international status when defining "Taiwan is a country" in the opening paragraph. STSC (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Examples:-

"Taiwan..., is a country which is not part of the UN. Taiwan is in East Asia, and neighbouring countries include..."  
"Taiwan..., is a non-UN member country in East Asia. ..."

STSC (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean Taiwan is not a "normal country"? Taiwan has its own constitution, government, military, passport, rule of law, and law and order all of which are not dependent on any other country or state... sounds very normal to me? Who defines "normal country"? Do you really think it is that important to mention that Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations in the introduction sentence, despite an entire paragraph and separate article going into significant more details? Eclipsed830 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't sound very normal to me when 179 countries don't have their embassies established in Taiwan. For this reason, when defining Taiwan as a country we should define it completely with its international status in the introduction paragraph. The fourth paragraph then further summarises the situation of Taiwan. STSC (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It sounds rather ridiculous to me to define a country based on what other countries do. --Khajidha (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, what is a "normal country"? The Taiwanese passport is accepted as a valid travel document by every single state and country in the world aside from Argentina, Jamaica, Georgia and China. Also some 70 other countries have de-facto embassies located within Taiwan. Where are you getting that a state must have a certain number of official diplomatic relations to be considered a "normal" country? And what is the exact number required to be a "normal" country? The Montevideo Convention is still the most widely accepted definition of an independent state in international law, and Article 3 is clear in that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." Eclipsed830 (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The natures of the current ROC and the ROC's administration of Taiwan are in dispute. So even though the ROC has its own constitutions and administers a region, its statehood is still in dispute. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I object to the starting of a RfC in the first place. There has been almost universal agreement in the previous discussion that the first paragraph should not be changed. A RfC should only be started when a consensus has not been reached, which is clearly not the case here. intforce (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of RfC is to draw a wider participation from uninvolved editors. STSC (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RfC states that If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC. There has very clearly been a consensus in the previous discussion you initiated above, whether you agree with it or not. Starting a RfC over this is a classic case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. intforce (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is not to state "Taiwan is not recognised by the UN". I have accepted it. This RfC is rather different. STSC (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not different, you're pushing some strange technicality. This was discussed in the discussion above as well. DrIdiot (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - pretty much a snowball consensus was already reached, so I'm not sure why we are having this RfC. It looks like someone didn't get their way so they are clogging up the talk page again. Not everything belongs in the lead. It's a country in east Asia and the rest belongs in the main body. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• It is possible to imagine a good version of the lead that included this information in the first paragraph, and there already exists a good version of the lead that does not include this information in the first paragraph. Given the poor wording of the RfC question, I guess that's a no. I agree with other editors that starting this RfC was an error. --JBL (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, see reasons above. This article seems to be further and further pushing a pro-Taiwan independence POV. It might be slightly violating WP:NPOV. Félix An (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons above. DrIdiot (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that starting RfC is confusing since there's a clear consensus above. RfC should include all comments made in that thread so we don't have to repeat them. DrIdiot (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Again? Read up on the previous discussions already included on this talk page. Paragraph 4, which is part of the introduction, goes into great detail about the political status of Taiwan. The first sentence links directly to an even more in-depth article discussing the topic. Eclipsed830 (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per my points in the section immediately above this RfC. Shoehorning a very complicated topic into a small lead paragraph disrupts the flow of the article. There is no justification to not have this issue explained in the 4th paragraph of the lead section instead, where it is more easily digestible by the reader. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Question What is its internatinal status?.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per "why are we even doing this?" Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is generally how Misplaced Pages treats disputed states and I see no reason why Taiwan should be an exception, it really makes me wonder if there are ideological reasons for it.PailSimon (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no Wiki policy for "disputed states" that supports this RfC and no good comparisons as are only a handful of countries in the same category as Taiwan. You're acting like people are denying that there's a political dispute when the argument is over whether that discussion should be in paragraph 1 vs. paragraph 4. DrIdiot (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

For an example of how Taiwan differs significantly from all the countries in the list List_of_states_with_limited_recognition#States_that_are_neither_UN_members_nor_UN_observers, Taiwan is the only one whose passport is widely accepted in all countries (with few exceptions) rather than vice versa. The point isn't that this confers statehood or whatever, it's that the discussion of what statehood means is subtle and requires significant space to describe in Taiwan's case. DrIdiot (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hence why I ask what do they want to say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note on canvasing, STSC has no reason to suppose I would support their suggestion. Either in this RFC or the one above. So I am not sure this is canvassing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Out of the 9 people he messaged, at least 3 have previously expressed a similar opinion to his on this talk page – an disproportionate amount given that the previous discussion was in almost unanimous opposition. Especially the inclusion of AmericanPropagandaHunter is highly suspicious (see his contributions on this page). intforce (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Or of the 9 people he messaged 2/3rds have not obviously expressed a similar opinion as to his. It may be he just notified a selection he thought was a good mix of opinions, rather than everyone.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO it's not obvious canvassing, but for now perhaps it's sufficient to note that the only editors so far to support this proposal are the initiator and those they have contacted. DrIdiot (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

They could just be lazy, personally I think raising the issue of canvassing is valid if an attempt was not made to contact all the involved parties. Whether its malicious or just lazy the appearance is there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually now that I look at it again it does appear to be unambiguous canvassing, of the named editors involved in the above discussion five did not receive a message about this RfC... 4/5 of those expressed negative opinions of STSC’s proposed edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The guideline advises not to send notices to too many editors. I therefore left out most of the editors who have been active in the discussion above. STSC (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - The country's complicated status is discussed at length further down in the lead and I don't see a clear reason why it absolutely needs to be mentioned in the first few words of the article. I also agree with previous posts who claim that not all unrecognised states are equal. Taiwan is a country that lacks in official recognition for diplomatic reasons, but has important soft recognition around the world and can barely be compared to something like Transnistria or Somaliland. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per everything everybody else has mentioned. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Taiwan's status of partial recognition is less than that of Kosovo or Palestine. Both of those mention it early. I think i made a table of them above in an earlier discussion. Irtapil (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

And? Your point? Why do you assume that the way things are done there is how they should be done here? Heck, why do you assume that the way things are done on those articles is the way they should be done there. But most importantly, why are you bothering ME in particular. --Khajidha (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We've talked about this exact same topic before, over and over again on this talk page, and the fact that you're repeating this yet again suggests to me that you seek zero compromise. Sad to say, but if hypothetically everybody in Palestine died overnight, the world would continue turning with zero consequence; if everybody in Taiwan died overnight, 40% of the world's semiconductor production would disappear, and countries like the United States and Japan would collectively start shitting their pants. From the perspective of the US, semiconductor supply has greater national security implications than oil, and the US has gone to war over oil before. Your repetitive comparisons to Kosovo and Palestine are false equivalences, and demonstrates a lack of expertise on the topic at hand. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is particularly relevant... can we try to stay on topic? I.e. we are not discussing the merits of Taiwan's RfC to refer to it as a country vs. Palestine's (which I am unfamiliar with). This is a narrow question about whether some wording needs to be in the 1st paragraph or if it can wait until the 4th. So far the supporters of this RfC have not addressed the many good points against, in my view. DrIdiot (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree lack of official international recognition should be mentioned in the first or second sentence. The encyclopaedia is supposed to reflect what the situation currently is, in an unbiased and neural way. Irtapil (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It was surreal - bordering on fiction - to describe mainland China as a "neighbouring country to the north west" with no clarifying comments until several paragraphs later. Irtapil (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it gives the false impression that there're two Chinas like North Korea and South Korea which are members of the UN. STSC (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not "surreal" or "fiction" or false", it's fact. They've been separate for 70+ years. Unless you're delusional. --Khajidha (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose clearly explained further down. Seems like attempt to rehash the country vs state debate in another form. At first I wasn’t sure why this kept coming up but it’s because of an ill-informed YouTuber making a video causing the page to get brigaded. Stephen Balaban 21:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Related issues have been subject to RfC multiple times. It needs to stop. I wonder if there is a way to apply WP:BOOMERANG to content. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Subject matter is addressed appropriately further down in the lead already. The political status of the 'state' does not need to be stated within the first sentence as well. The sentence about the official country name and location in east asia is sufficient. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The UN should not be introduced in the first paragraph. The first paragraph must be strictly about Taiwan, not the UN. The first sentence can only breifly allude to the current political complication, and weaving in the UN makes it not fit the sentence. The rest of paragraph must reamin dedicated to uncontestable observable facts written for an audience that has never before heard of Taiwan.

More could be said about the current internation standing of Taiwan at the end of paragraph 2.

The bulk of what is reasonable to say in the four-paragraph lede is said in paragraph 4. Some rearrangement of the information flow on the political standing can be made in paragraphs 2-4, as these paragraphs describe parallel developments.

RE: "Taiwan..., is a country which is not part of the UN. Taiwan is in East Asia, and neighbouring countries include..."

NO. That immediately fails as bad writing, to write what something is "not" before telling the reader what it is.

RE "Taiwan..., is a non-UN member country in East Asia. ..."

This is better, but, while "non-UN" is not exactly a "not" statement, but I don't like it as the UN is not yet introduced.

The lede sentence, stript of notes references and paretheticals, reads:

Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, is a country in East Asia.

Possible alternatives:

"Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, is a country in East Asia."

xxx = de jure, de facto, independent, renegade, remnant pre Chinese Civil War, Chinese, Han Chinese,

Maybe I like: :: "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, is a Han Chinese country in East Asia."

Is Taiwan a renegade province? No, too POV, Taiwan can be said to be the original China. It can also be said that the island was not originally Chinese, and then for much of modern history it was Japanese.

I think the population dominant racial group is compelling. Taiwan is even more Han Chinese than mainland China. Here, I am coming from wanting to help the perspective of readers who non-infrequently confuse Taiwan with Thailand. The lede sentence needs to address a low level need for information.

Reminding the reader that Taiwanese are ethically Chinese is a nod towards the mainland China POV of "One China", without going very far.

... officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country ...

"Country" works. "Country" is not a legally defined word, anywhere. The meaning depends on who is using it. Its etymology derives from "land" and has a strong history of avoidance of politics. China, North Korea and South Korea are all named "country" in their lede sentences. China-Taiwan is strongly analagous to NorthKorea-SouthKorea, the biggest difference being size ratio.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support "Taiwan is a de facto country", as it alludes to the (undisputed) fact that Taiwan is no regular country. The fourth paragraph can be seen as the resolution of the "de facto" statement. intforce (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that it is a possibility, but in the end it doesn't help. "Country" is already a weak word, including things that are not a "nation" or a "state". Adding "de facto" begs for a balancing "independent", and immediately there are too many words. "Country" doesn't mean "regular country". Alternatively, one could say, that for virtually all inhabitants of Taiwan, and visitors, it is as regular a country as any normal country. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - didn't we just go through this a short while ago? Plus we already have an Rfc opened by this same editor. Shall we open a few more? Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose It currently flows well, and the opening section is well-written. The first paragraph is akin to the like paragraph for most countries, describing its name and the local geography. No need to rearrange it. On a separate note, both South Korea and North Korea claim sovereignty over the other, but this is not noted in the opening section for either country. Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The reason Taiwan isn't recognised by many states is complicated, and many countries, while not recognising it formally, still have informal relations with Taiwan. It's not a UN member because of a conflict with the Republic of China, which wields enormous influence, including veto rights. This is too complex to be summed up effectively in a lead, without producing a distorted picture. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Just stating "Taiwan is a country" is a bad and incomplete definition for a country which has limited recognition. Please don't think it can fool the readers; it can only make the readers distrust and disrespect Misplaced Pages. Somaliland and Palestine articles truthfully define the countries in the opening paragraph, why should Taiwan be different? Besides, I would want to see any independent reliable sources that define Taiwan only as a country without any additional information immediately after describing Taiwan as a country. STSC (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• it can only make the readers distrust and disrespect Misplaced Pages.

  Why are you all of a sudden concerned about whether readers will respect Misplaced Pages? 🤔🤔🤔

I'm concerned about some attempts to manipulate Misplaced Pages contents to fool the readers. STSC (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Somaliland and Palestine articles truthfully define the countries in the opening paragraph, why should Taiwan be different?

Misplaced Pages does not work on precedent; never has, and never will. The merits and disadvantages of how article content should be presented are only argued from the context of a specific article, unless there is an existing Misplaced Pages policy or Manual of Style guideline that requires us to write in a certain way across different articles throughout Misplaced Pages. Let me ask you—is there an existing Misplaced Pages policy or MoS guideline that tells us that the Taiwan lede should match the Palestine lede? If the answer is no, and you're not satisfied with how things are, why don't you volunteer to propose a new Misplaced Pages-wide guideline to be made?

You still haven't answered why Taiwan should be different.

Actually Misplaced Pages has the guidelines but you'd probably argue your way out of it. STSC (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I would want to see any independent reliable sources that define Taiwan only as a country without any additional information immediately after stating Taiwan is a country.

Uhh, what? You're literally dragging the goalposts to the centre circle before getting ready to kick the ball in. Of course every single article will include more information after mentioning Taiwan, why on earth would the New York Times write a 13-word article? Are articles not allowed to write anything after mentioning the sovereignty of Taiwan anymore? Besides, I would like to see independent reliable sources that say that Misplaced Pages is respected whenever they describe Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia—sounds really silly when I mess around with the goalposts now, doesn't it? --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The definition "Taiwan is a country" doesn't reflect the full context of the sources, it should be amended. STSC (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox “Languages”

STSC and Intforce, what is the logic in changing the way languages are displayed in the sidebar? Taiwan does not have one official language, but many. For example, the government recognizes Amis, Atayal, Bunun, Kanakanabu, Kavalan, Paiwan, Puyuma, Rukai, Saaroa, Saisiyat, Sakizaya, Seediq, Thao, Truku, and Tsou as official languages too. Also, shouldn't it be Taiwanese Mandarin? Eclipsed830 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not changing anything, I simply reverted STSC's first edit because they did not provide a source. Quite frankly, I think we need a better source than some "BBC factbook". Note that "official" language and "recognized" languages are not the same though. Can you provide a source for the claim that Taiwan has no official language? Then we could simply put None into the infobox. intforce (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess the question becomes how do we define "official" then? Typically "national languages" are de-dacto official languages, as even Taiwan.gov.tw implies there is more than one official language: " In modern Taiwan, traditional Chinese characters are utilized as the written form of Mandarin, one of the nation’s official languages." Eclipsed830 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The national languages could actually mean official languages in Taiwan. STSC (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

For a list of national languages, see: Tsai_Ing-wen#National_languages. Taiwan does not enumerate its official national languages, they are merely defined to be any language used by a significant ethnic group. In practice, these are drawn from the list in loc. cit. DrIdiot (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Taiwan articles
• Top-importance Taiwan articles
• WikiProject Taiwan articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Asia articles
• Top-importance Asia articles
• WikiProject Asia articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Limited recognition articles
• High-importance Limited recognition articles
• WikiProject Limited recognition articles
• C-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• C-Class Islands articles
• WikiProject Islands articles
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment