Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:18, 17 March 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

Template:Vital article

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. 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

"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

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

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)

"... is a country with limited recognition" would be acceptable. STSC (talk) 18:42, 30 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? 🤔🤔🤔

  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?

  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)

1) I'm concerned about some attempts to manipulate Misplaced Pages contents to fool the readers.

2) 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.

3) 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)

One, don't refactor my comment, ever. I don't care if you think you can make it pretty, just don't. If you want to address a specific point, use {{tq}} like every other normal editor would.

Actually Misplaced Pages has the guidelines but you'd probably argue your way out of it.

Link the guideline page then. Surely you can do that, right? --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for being lazy but please don't swear. I was just trying to answer you point by point.

Somaliland and Palestine have followed the guidelines but you still would not answer why Taiwan should be different. Could you answer that please? STSC (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What guidelines? --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please remove the f-words from your hidden comments? STSC (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, done. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll put the guidelines under a new section and I hope we'll have a good debate on it. STSC (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You can find what you ask for in the RfC on this issue. DrIdiot (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That RfC concerned whether to use the term "country" or "state", it's a different issue. STSC (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Other options were discussed. DrIdiot (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Also this was a response for your request for RS, of which there are plenty in the RfC. DrIdiot (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please show me some examples? STSC (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Literally in the link a few lines above. DrIdiot (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an extreme form of WP:Lead fixation. There is a whole paragraph on the topic, or one quarter of the standard lead length. The situation is much more complicated than, say, Somaliland, and there's no need to torture the prose to fit in some specific adjective when a quarter of the lead conveys more information than that adjective ever could. CMD (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC statement is a bit too vague and simultaneously attached to a discussion about a specific wording proposal that would not be an improvement to the current article, so this RfC is destined for a WP:SNOW close (I'm surprised it has not happened already). However, there is definitely room for wording in the first paragraph that can give a brief and accurate description of Taiwan's status as described by reliable source (e.g. with the term de facto, which can also be slightly vague, or an endnote ({{efn}}) in a way that is not clumsy or misleading.Possible wording improvements would need to be hashed out in a separate discussion or in a more narrowly focused RfC though, as this RfC is too vague and the concerns about some specific wordings here are valid.I was notified about this discussion on my talk page after I initially saw the RfC but refrained from commenting. — MarkH₂₁ 07:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it would be clearer to describe Taiwan as a de facto country, or add a footnote clarifying that it is disputed. Félix An (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I should have put this RfC under a new primary section (2nd level heading), and I admit maybe it wasn't well constructed. I think your suggestion of inserting an endnote is quite acceptable. STSC (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Taiwan(roc) is a country with limited recgonition which is quite an important aspect of Taiwan(roc). So it would be a good idea to include that it is a country with limited recgonition.Finn.reports (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of misconduct

@STSC: this section is for you to explain your inflammatory comment "I'm concerned about some attempts to manipulate Misplaced Pages contents to fool the readers.” either provide diffs or retract immediately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User Benlisquare asked me the question, I answered his question in general. No one is accused. STSC (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You said in black and white that there were "attempts to manipulate Misplaced Pages contents to fool the readers” so now you need to either provide diffs which support that assertion or retract it. What attempts specifically are you referring to? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my answer above. Thank you. STSC (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you have anything to add was was your answer above veracious? If so we have a big issue to get to the bottom of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment. STSC's actions constitute disruptive editing by now. Refusing to recognize the overwhelming consensus against his suggestion on "'Not recognised by the UN' should be stated in the first paragraph" by starting an undue RfC, and then, when that also turned against his favor, making nonsense edits like this and this on the article. Classic refusal to get the point. intforce (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I had already accepted "not recognised by the UN" is not a correct statement as some editors pointed out the UN does not have the authority to recognise any country. This RfC concerns a different issue. STSC (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, those two edits are clearly disruptive and for the sole purpose of illustrating niche points made on the talk page. They’ve been around way too long not to know Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment The consensus is (twice) overwhelming at this point. STSC and others have not addressed the others' points substantially and the discussion is going in circles. I agree that STSC is pushing the issue. I've put in a request to close this RfC. DrIdiot (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

OK I just saw the latest edit. Yes, I think it's disruptive. I've left a vandalism warning at User_talk:STSC#Taiwan. You can't start an RfC, lose it overwhelmingly, and then go ahead and make the edits you want anyway. DrIdiot (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Another comment on the edit , STSC I've linked you the RfC I linked for you above. There's no need for a citation. It's been established by the RfC and you can find sources in there if you like. Feels like bad faith for you to insist on this point. DrIdiot (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As an editor, I may challenge the sources by applying the maintenance tags on the content. It's not disruptive. Just concentrate on the debate and do not divert the attention to something else. STSC (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It is disruptive when you do it intentionally knowing that there was an entire RfC, recently, on the wording you are challenging, and an ongoing one on a related subject in which the consensus is clearly against the change you want to make. Don't try to push this technicality. User:Geographyinitiative was banned for a similar thing recently. DrIdiot (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not intentional at all. If I've missed something, please tell. The previous RfC was about using the terms "country" or "state". This RfC is about additional wording on describing Taiwan in the opening paragraph. STSC (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This will be my last reply, since it's starting to feel like you're just trying to waste everyone's time. I'm talking about your recent edit, where you tagged "country" with a citation tag, except for the wording was established by a prior RfC. DrIdiot (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You always refer me to look at somewhere else. I'll have a look again. STSC (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Demonym

I've removed "Chinese" as a demonym in the infobox because "Chinese" refers to a much larger group than just "people of Taiwan." To quote myself from an earlier discussion in Archive 23: People from Hawaii are called "Hawaiians." They can also be called "Americans," since Hawaii is part of the USA, but we do not claim that "American is a demonym for residents of Hawaii." And furthermore, the demonym for people of Honolulu is listed as "Honolulans," and we don't list "Hawaiians" or "Americans" as alternative demonyms, even though "Honolulans" is a sub-group of "Hawaiians," which is a sub-group of "Americans." Phlar (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Well done !BushelCandle (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm gonna have to undo that removal if you mind, because 1.) It violates WP:NPOV as Taiwan is a pretty disputed and contentious topic and 2.) There is no formal discussion or RFC yet for such a substantial and controversial change. IF in such a case that a consensus will be reached in a future discussion (the discussion archive you linked has no consensus basing from my perspective) then we can remove that from the demonyms. PyroFloe (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  How does this topic affect NPOV? The Chinese Government POV isn't that the demonym for people on Taiwan is Chinese, they use specific terms for their subdivisions like anyone else does: Beijinger, Shanghainese, Taiwanese, Taiwanese. CMD (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  Before we argue again whether or not Taiwan is a legitimate sovereign state (which was agreed that it is a state in a previous discussion) or a province of the PRC, we already have an article for Taiwan as a province of the PRC and that is here at Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China so that should be where the removal proposal should go. The news agencies you cited are sources that are owned by the Communist Party, citing WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, it has been agreed that the two are not generally reliable and were considered for deprecation. Removing "Chinese" and maintaining just "Taiwanese" is contentious for both the ROC and PRC perspective because removing it pushes the idea that it is an independent demographic from the One China policy, and that is what both governments don't want, the sole reason why the Republic of China uses Chinese Taipei in some international organizations. PyroFloe (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  No-one has brought up whether or not Taiwan is a sovereign state here. The two sources you note are very close to the Communist party use Taiwanese, so clearly it's not contentious as a demonym. Similarly, the Hawaii article isn't pushing a separatist POV by not listing American as a demonym, and the Shanghai articles isn't pushing a separatist POV by using a demonym for Shanghai. CMD (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think you’ve misunderstood the meaning of the word 'demonym'. A demonym for a place is a name that applies only to people of that place. 'Chinese' is the demonym for all of China, a territory of which Taiwan is just one part. To list 'Chinese' as a demonym for Taiwan is to claim that this name applies only to people of Taiwan, which obviously isn’t true. People of Taiwan can be called Chinese, East Asians, Asians and Earthlings, but none of these are demonyms for Taiwan. Phlar (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"...China, a territory of which Taiwan is just one part." Excuse me? --Matt Smith (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead... do you have a question? Phlar (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand the quote correctly, but you seemed to assert that Taiwan is part of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please ignore that clause—it can be omitted without changing my main point about the demonym. Phlar (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• If the editors here persist to remove the Chinese demonym then I will hold my concern for now. I think I understand your points that the ROC does recognize Taiwanese as a nationality, and Taiwanese is a subsection of Chinese but it does not recognize to be part of that "Chinese" (PRC). The same way Turkey uses "Turkish or Turk" rather than "Turkic" PyroFloe (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In most Chinese languages/dialects there is a linguistic distinction between Chinese and Citizen of the PRC, I don’t know why there isn't the same in English. Damn this bastard tongue haha! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Just for the record, demonym is really unrelated to nationality and 'recognition'. See the explanation & examples at Demonym. Phlar (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

An editor just added "Chinese (historical)" to the demonym box and I've reverted it pending discussion. Taiwan Today is a publication run directly by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; I am not sure if that counts as RS for demonyms since it has an inherent political bias, especially from that time period. But I think arguments by others made above still apply historically: "Chinese" was never a demonym for the people of Taiwan; it was a demonym for the people of China, which (once?) included Taiwan. I believe that the historical demonym for the people of Taiwan, during that time, was "Formosan". DrIdiot (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s a need to list historical demonyms in the infobox. They could be added to the body, perhaps within the Etymology section. However—and what I’m writing here goes against the arguments I’ve laid out above—it’s occurred to me that the demonym for "people of the ROC" certainly is not "Taiwanese", so I propose listing two demonyms, one for the common name of the country, and one for the official name:

Taiwanese (people of Taiwan)

Chinese (people of the ROC)

Phlar (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

But in the 21st century Taiwanese is used for both of those, nobody calls ROC citizens Chinese anymore. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I know many ROC citizens who describe themselves as "Chinese from Taiwan" but I haven't found a WP:RS to support this. Phlar (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Are they using Chinese as a national or ethnic term? For instance one can be a “Chinese from Tahiti” or a “Chinese from the UK.” Although I think most people would say a Chinese person from X to remove a bit more of the ambiguity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That "from Taiwan" is appended is a pretty good indicator regarding the specificity of "Chinese" as a demonym in this situation. CMD (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, CMD, I don’t follow you. Phlar (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

They're using Chinese not as a demonym for Taiwan, but for the entirety of China. Hence why they specify from Taiwan. It was the same with the Chang Kai-Shek quote that was purportedly used for Chinese before, he specifically said "Overseas Chinese". CMD (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That’s possible, but it’s also possible that the people I’m describing are using "Chinese" as the demonym for "people of the Republic of China". Phlar (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Chinese from Taiwan" maybe, but not "Chinese" by itself. CMD (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with CMD. The initial reasoning for removing it is strong. Even if you believe Taiwan is part of China, the demonym is still "Taiwanese." Taiwan is part of Asia, but "Asian" is not a demonym. This question isn't about personal identity or politics. DrIdiot (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I still agree that whether or not Taiwan is a PART of China is irrelevant to the demonym question, but my hesitation is over the fact that we're also saying Taiwan IS (the Republic of) China, and both the article and the infobox are about this dual-named place. We're acknowledging both the common name "Taiwan" and the official name "Republic of China" as valid names for this place. Shouldn't we also acknowledge two names for the people of this place? In a situation where someone is using the place name Republic of China, might they use "Chinese" as the demonym for the people of this place? Phlar (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The answer to the last question is basically no, not in practice. Anyway the article is about Taiwan, and IMO the demonym should reflect the people/place that the article is actually about. The article is not about the ROC "as China" (which, in some sense, only exists abstractly, not in reality) but the ROC "as Taiwan". People who say "Chinese on Taiwan" are asserting belonging to a wider Chinese (cultural or otherwise) nation (including PRC). They are definitely not asserting belonging to a group that excludes those in China. DrIdiot (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I see your point though. For me the logic is: the article is about Taiwan as a political unit. That's the starting point. This naturally leads to discussion of ROC, which is the official name of the government on Taiwan. It also leads to discussion of Kinmen, etc., because they are administered by that government. In particular, the starting point is not the ROC. This is reflected by the article: it contains a history of Taiwan, and only discusses the ROC where the two intersect. DrIdiot (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The main problem is this article constantly mixes “Taiwan” and “Republic of China”, which are two different concepts, even when they mostly overlap. De wafelenbak (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

History paragraph in lead

I have again reverted expansion of the history paragraph in the lead. Things don't necessarily have to be in the lead, and this one is already fairly long. Other specific objections:

• Interjecting that indigenous peoples are currently a minority into a sentence about their arrival 6,000 years ago is unnecessary and breaks the flow.
• Replacing a summary of the role of Dutch colonization with the claim that "Ming China, the Dutch Republic, and the Spanish Empire were all vying for greater presence in the region" does not reflect the article body, or the sources cited therein.
• Koxinga certainly claimed to be a Ming loyalist, but his motives are debated by historians. Such contentious detail does not belong in the lead.
• Also, "appertaining" is awkward. Kanguole 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree, I don't think the added text adds much. DrIdiot (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, succinct is best and the added text was confusing at best. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section serves as a reference point for my reasonings, notably to "establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The current version has numerous places that are redundant, incomplete, inconsistent with the body of the article, or outright misleading. Since it appears that many editors have a lot more time on their hands then I do, I would appreciate it if some of you actually try to improve the section.

1. Current: Austronesian-speaking Taiwanese indigenous peoples settled the island of Taiwan around 6,000 years ago. Proposed: Austronesian-speaking indigenous peoples settled the island of Taiwan around 6,000 years ago. Rationale: Using both "Taiwanese" and "island of Taiwan" is redundant. Furthermore, these peoples might have originated from other places and weren't exactly Taiwanese, especially if the land and ocean geographies were different at the time. Even in this article's body, they are refered to as "ancestors" of today's Taiwanese indigenous peoples. Additionally, there's evidence that they did not even stay confined to Taiwan afterwards. It is therefore more accurate and succinct to simply use "indigenous peoples".
2. Current: In the 17th century, partial Dutch colonization opened the island to mass Han Chinese immigration. Proposed: By the 17th century, Ming China, the Dutch Republic, and the Spanish Empire were all vying for greater presence in the region. Rationale: The 17th century spans 1600 and 1699. It was a period of great contests that, along with subsequent events, underscores why Taiwan's political status became so complicated. The conflicts between Ming China and the Dutch in Penghu, between the Dutch and the Spanish on the island, the founding of Tungning, and Qing's annexation are all elaborated upon in the body of this article, but I do not see any mentions of mass Han immigration specifically tied to Dutch colonization. My proposed version is more consistent with the body of this article.
3. Current: After the brief rule of part of southwestern Taiwan by the Kingdom of Tungning, parts of the island were annexed in 1683 by the Qing dynasty of China, and ceded to the Empire of Japan in 1895. Proposed: The Kingdom of Tungning, founded by Ming loyalist Koxinga, briefly ruled part of southwestern Taiwan until the island was annexed in 1683 by the Qing dynasty. In 1895, following Qing's defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War, Taiwan and its appertaining islands were ceded to the Empire of Japan. Rationale: Again, we highlight the historically contested nature of Taiwan as a prize among great powers. The lead section of the article on Koxinga refers to him as a "Ming loyalist". Furthermore, its body states that he pledged allegiance to the only remaining claimant of the Ming throne. This is also corroborated by the Government Information Office of Taiwan, which I can add to the sources here and elsewhere. Moving on, nowhere in this article does it mention that Qing's annexation was partial, but it does mention the war between the Qing and Japan and the ceding of Taiwan as a result of that. Appertaining islands are important because of the ongoing disputes between Taiwan, China, and Japan over the Senkaku Islands, a major global flashpoint. If you do not like the use of "appertaining", we can try "appertinent" or "appurtenant" instead; there's no reason for removing it outright. Overall, this change adds 1 sentence to the paragraph, but we gain important contexts that are relevant to ongoing controversies.
4. Current: The Republic of China, which had overthrown and succeeded the Qing in 1911, took control of Taiwan on behalf of the World War II Allies following the surrender of Japan in 1945. Proposed: In 1945, the Republic of China (ROC), which had overthrown and succeeded the Qing, took control on behalf of the World War II Allies after Japan's surrender earlier that year. Rationale: Even without "1911", readers can infer from the timeline that the Republic of China came into power after 1895 and before 1945. Instead, "ROC" can be added in case they missed the only instance of the acronym appearing earlier in the introduction. The current placement of 1945 is also ambiguous in terms of whether the year refers to Japan's surrender, ROC's taking over, or both. My proposed version makes that clear.
5. Current: since 1950 its effective jurisdiction has been limited to Taiwan and numerous smaller islands. Proposed: since 1950 its effective jurisdiction has been limited to the island of Taiwan and other maritime features, some of which are disputed by neighbouring countries. Rationale: Another major flashpoint is the South China Sea, where Taiwan controls the Pratas, Taiping, and Zhongzhou following Japan's surrender in WW2. How they should be classified, as islands, rocks, or reefs, etc., has implications in terms of whether they can be claimed as territories and assigned exclusive economic zones. This again reinforces the theme of contention, which has become an important part of Taiwan's history. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with your proposals 1-5 with the reservation that we need to strenuously resist bloat in the lede.

PS: I restored your user signature for the sake of clarity.BushelCandle (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@WikiwiLimeli: I think you’ve made a number of errors. For example its common knowledge that the Qing never controlled all of Taiwan, the Japanese were the first to subdue (to put it politely) all of the independent tribes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither did the Japanese completely subdue everyone on the island. By your logic, half of the U.S. states & territories in the 19th century would not be considered a part of the United States due to frequent conflicts with the indigenous tribes.WikiwiLimeli (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The Japanese did in fact subdue the entire island through long and bloody military campaigns followed by forced assimilation. At the beginning of the 19th century the vast majority of the modern U.S. States and territories were not yet part of the country, thats a true statement regardless of which logic you choose to use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That depends on your personal definition of 'subdue', because there were all forms of resistance and rebellions against the Japanese. Similarly with the U.S., after those states and territories officially became a part of the U.S., the indigenous tribes were not completely subdued either, which according to your personal interpretation would somehow prevent them from being counted as a part of the U.S. We cannot rely on personal preferences as determinators of what counts as annexation. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We aren’t talking about isolated tribes, we’re talking about more than 1/3-2/3 of the island’s land area that the Qing had not yet conquered when the colonial project of conquering Taiwan from its indigenous people was turned over to the Japanese. Only under the Japanese did the indigenous nations in the mountains lose their sovereignty. You appear to be arguing semantics when you should stick to history 101. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you agree then only parts of the island were ceded by the Qing to Japan? The Empire of Japan did not think so! It sounds like you are just trolling now. Don't you get it, your personal opinion of what defines annexation does not matter. Spain, Portugal, Mexico, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Imperial Russia, the Mongol Empire, Qing China, etc. all possessed/possesses significant territories where the indigenous peoples were/are not conquered or subdued. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Your repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations is unhelpful as well as offensive. The Empire of Japan had to invest a significant amount of blood and treasure in conquering the last of the independent indigenous nations of Taiwan, I think they were well aware that they were not being handed the sovereignty of all of Taiwan because the Qing did not possess it in the first place to give it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

First, no one understands your position anymore. Qing's annexation of the island is well evidenced by historical documents, and Japan specifically asked for the cession of the entire island of Taiwan and all its appertinent islands from the Qing. I've also listed numerous nations whose territorial expansions were recognized internationally despite not having conquered/subdued all their indigenous peoples. Case closed. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Second, your ludicrous and outright fabricated accusation that somehow my writing amounted to "repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations" completely perverts its true character while conveniently omitting the fact that you were the one who first brought up the notions of conquest and subjugation. Please stop trolling and spreading lies before this escalates. Lastly, before telling other people whether they should stick to semantics or history 101 or what not, you may want to brush up on these topics yourself. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, can agree with (1). Disagree with (2), I think it's incorrect. I could find a reference, but the Dutch employed Chinese for various work during that time I believe. Disagree with (3), it's a real stretch to say 17th century struggles have to do with Senkaku dispute -- do you have an actual reference for this? I thought ROC claims on Senkakus were just inherited from ROC. Adds a lot of bloat just to foreground outlying islands. Ambivalent on (4), it's more concise, but one could argue that since ROC is current gov on Taiwan it's worth including that small detail re: it's history. Disagree with (5), it's longer, and I don't think the claims in the South China Sea are that important that it needs to be in the lead. DrIdiot (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding re: (2) is that the point is to explain how Han Chinese ended up on Taiwan (who are still there), not to provide all the details re: its history of colonization. The Spanish, on the other hand, have all left. DrIdiot (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be easier to focus on the general history of that time period as opposed to how Han Chinese ended up there in the first place? Because for the latter, there is evidence of their settlement even before 6,000 years ago. We would also run into the problem of what counts as "mass" immigration? Are there numbers to compare how many were on Taiwan before, during, and after Dutch colonization? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about the Spanish. DrIdiot (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe more to the point, I'm not sure it's accurate to say the Ming were "vying for presence." I mean, the Ming controlled China. They had presence in the region. They didn't go to Taiwan until the Ming dynasty fell. The relationship isn't symmetric (and by then the Spanish were gone). Also, I brought up Han migration because, since the island is mostly Han now, it's important to mention when the migration started. DrIdiot (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this group psychosis? I thought this article is about ROC Taiwan, not the geographical Taiwan island. Penghu is important strategically, and the Ming was there. While the Spanish presence on the island was smaller than that of the Dutch, it was a major reason for the entrance of the Dutch in the first place. These were important historical trends, regardless of their modern relevance, and should be included in the history paragraph of the lead as a high-level, one-sentence summary. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Han migrations started much earlier. You seem to support the idea that it became "mass immigration" during Dutch colonization, but I don't see any numbers backing that up and distinguishing the Dutch period from other time periods to the extent that it would warrant specific mentioning in the lead. On top of that, from the timeline in the history paragraph, readers can already infer there have been extensive influxes Han Chinese. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If you can't be respectful ("group psychosis"), there's no need to continue this conversation. Of course there are no numbers. Han migration to Penghu was much earlier, but this is somewhat parenthetical. See DrIdiot (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please find RS that establishes a direct connection between disputes during the Dutch colonial era and current political disputes surrounding Taiwan. This is the core of your argument, and I think it's false. DrIdiot (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

How was asking an impersonal question disrespectful? The standards you hold are completely lopsided. You made your objections: "They didn't go to Taiwan until the Ming dynasty fell. The relationship isn't symmetric (and by then the Spanish were gone)," and I addressed them: "I thought this article is about ROC Taiwan, not the geographical Taiwan island. Penghu is important strategically, and the Ming was there. While the Spanish presence on the island was smaller than that of the Dutch, it was a major reason for the entrance of the Dutch in the first place." Of course, you chose to 'respectfully' misrepresent my entire argument: "direct connection between disputes during the Dutch colonial era and current political disputes surrounding Taiwan. This is the core of your argument", despite my making it clear that "These were important historical trends, regardless of their modern relevance, and should be included in the history paragraph of the lead as a high-level, one-sentence summary." WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Your argument for retaining "partial Dutch colonization opened the island to mass Han Chinese immigration" basically boils down to "Of course there are no numbers." How on Earth would it be relevant then, especially as I had pointed out earlier, the reader already can infer there have been extensive influxes of Han Chinese throughout Taiwan's history. The section you linked doesn't mention anything about the beginning of any mass immigration; as far as we know, it could have been small or large, and by no means the first wave of Han Chinese. Compared to the Spanish and the Ming, how is Dutch colonization still relevant today, considering it held no special place in terms of Han immigration? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RS establishes that Han migration to Taiwan, excluding Penghu, began during Dutch era when they needed workers. Penghu is parenthetical; it's already mentioned in the body that migration there was earlier, but I don't think it belongs in the lead. If your opposition is to the word "mass" in "mass migration" then I am fine with removing that word. DrIdiot (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference: Chapter 4 of Chou's A New Illustrate History of Taiwan. DrIdiot (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, . DrIdiot (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok would be good in the body as well. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

ROC claims the Senkakus on the basis, among other things, that they were ceded as appertaining islands of Taiwan by the Qing to the Japanese and that treaty has now become null and void. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure and what's that got to do with... 16th century disputes with the Dutch? Also the Senkaku dispute is not old. Governments make arbitrary post-hoc arguments all the time. DrIdiot (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to speculate about Taiwan's motivation behind her arguments. However, the historical event itself is factual. There's also no denial that it is critical to Taiwan's official position on a prominent controversy. It's a part of her history worth mentioning, considering we are adding only a few words. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not speculating on anything. In your point (2) you want to modify a sentence to include Ming China and the Spanish. You claim it has to do with Senkakus?, and therefore should be included? Show me RS that establishes that. DrIdiot (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoops I got (2) and (3) confused. Anyway, I'm still against it. I don't think it's important enough to include in the lead. DrIdiot (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In particular I don't think it's an improvement. It's a stylistic issue. DrIdiot (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In particular, it adds words "appertaining islands" without specifying what those islands are and why it's important. So, it effectively adds zero information at the cost of space. I think you are also, generally, placing undue weight on this Senkaku dispute. DrIdiot (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you want to explain everything in the lead then? Why is any of this important then, "Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south. The main island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometres (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third"? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No. What belongs in the lead or not is subjective. My opinion is that I am against your proposed edits (with above exceptions). DrIdiot (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are you not against this then "Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south. The main island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometres (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third"? These may be important facts, but if so, unexplained in the lead. Therefore, there's no precedence that requires the importance of 'appertaining islands' to be explained directly in the lead either. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed changes:

1. It's true that they weren't Taiwanese before they came to Taiwan – we should say "ancestors". "Austronesian-speaking" could be similarly criticized – most linguists would identify Taiwan as the Urheimat of Austronesian, and say that it is anachronistic to apply the name to an earlier stage. It would be good to avoid repeating "Taiwan", but we should also avoid an WP:EGG link. So I would suggest: The ancestors of Taiwanese indigenous peoples settled the island around 6,000 years ago.
2. The article does mention the connection between the first wave of mass Han immigration and Dutch colonization, but perhaps that part needs improving. The notion is well supported by references in the article, e.g. Wills (2006) and Andrade (2007). On the other hand, "vying for greater presence" is synthesis – the Ming set up a military outpost on Penghu, but had no interest in settling Taiwan. The Spanish contribution was minor.
3. As above, Koxinga claimed to be loyal to the then-defunct Ming dynasty, but his actual motives are disputed by historians, and therefore should not be baldly asserted in the lead. The great power dispute theme that you wish to emphasize is anachronistic.
4. "1911" is relevant information that takes up little space. Repeating the ROC acronym introduced in the previous paragraph is unnecessary – one instance is enough. The Japanese surrendered on 2 September 1945 and nationalist forces took over the island on 25 October 1945. It hardly seems worth twisting the sentence around (mentioning 1945 before the fall of the Qing) to cover that.
5. I agree with DrIdiot that it's not worth expanding this to cover the South China Sea dispute. Kanguole 10:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Penghu is an important strategic outpost for the country. You can't equate Taiwan with ROC yet also exclude information that's still relevant to ROC, even if it's not directly related to Taiwan island. The Spanish was not just a minor but a major influence. During the 16th and 17th centuries, they were constantly at war with the Dutch, both in Europe and elsewhere. One of the reasons the Dutch wanted to establish a foothold in China, Penghu, or Taiwan was because their trade routes were being cut off by the Spanish. Of course, in response, the Spanish also wanted to expand. The battles between the Dutch and the Spanish on Taiwan island, as mentioned in the body of the article, took place against the backdrop of centuries of globalized wars. We can use "trying to protect their own interests" instead of "vying for greater presence", but to be honest, if "vying for greater presence" counts as "synthesis", "parts of the island were annexed" would have been even more egregious, and that's been up there for who knows how long. In retrospect, it's even worse than I had realized at first, because it somehow implies only the parts annexed by the Qing were ceded to Japan. I've never seen a map from Qing China or Imperial Japan that included only parts of the island.

There's nothing disputing Koxinga's motives in the body of the article.

We should at least use "the island of Taiwan and other maritime features" so as to cover everything that's under ROC jurisdiction, without excluding items that are not technically islands, so that it doesn't appear this article is taking sides in the ongoing SCS disputes. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the cession to Japan, in addition to it being a result of a war (as opposed to other territory-exchanging arrangements), it should also be mentioned that Japan ultimately formally renounced her gains and past treaties with China. These are not to be considered occupied territories after Japan lost WW2. I think no matter how you cut it, this event warrants more context and details. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am against changing "islands" to "maritime features". That is making the text less accessible, and I don't think the existing text can be reasonably construed as taking sides in a territorial dispute due to a single technical legal definition of "island". CMD (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not simple English Misplaced Pages. I would think the average English speaker would have no issue understanding what "maritime feature" means. Taiwan formally rejected the PCA tribunal ruling in 2016 over the concern, among others, that Taiping was classified as a rock and not an island. It is important to use accurate terminology here. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear-cut example of MOS:JARGON. Average English speakers are not versed in maritime law. CMD (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It can be made clearer but I guess it's not absolutely necessary. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

6. Current: After the brief rule of part of southwestern Taiwan by the Kingdom of Tungning, the island was annexed in 1683 by the Qing dynasty, and ceded to the Empire of Japan in 1895. The Republic of China, which had overthrown and succeeded the Qing in 1911, took control of Taiwan on behalf of the World War II Allies following the surrender of Japan in 1945. Proposed: Qing China annexed Taiwan in 1683 and ceded it to Japan in 1895 after the First Sino-Japanese War. The Republic of China, which had overthrown and succeeded the Qing in 1911, gained control on behalf of World War II Allies following Japan's surrender in 1945. Rationale: Due to its lasting effects on the power shift between China and Japan, on the territorial disputes and relationships between Japan, ROC, and PRC today, the transition between Qing and Japan seems more important than the Kingdom of Tungning and warrants greater elaboration at the latter's expense. Re-worded the second sentence. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Zheng interlude, though brief, is a key part of the history. It was their presence that got the the Qing into Taiwan. It is certainly worth a few words in part of a sentence.

In general, evaluating the past through the lens of the present does a disservice to the history. Also, "gained control" is vague, while "took control" is certainly justified. Kanguole 15:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Kangoule, Tunging deserves a brief mention at least. DrIdiot (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Zheng got into Taiwan because he needed more of a base area after Qing took over Ming, so ultimately the reason Qing got into Taiwan was because of its own expansion. Also, the Spanish was the reason the Dutch wanted its own access to China (with Taiwan as a fallback); should we mention that as well? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the original motivation of the Dutch was opening trade with China, where their chief rivals were the Portuguese. Kanguole 12:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Why can't people spend as much time researching as they do policing other editors? The Spanish and the Portuguese monarch was one and the same. After the Dutch rebelled, the Spanish cut off their trade, compelling the former to send out its own expeditions instead of relying on the Spanish/Portugese. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

These speculations about the origins of Dutch colonialism are getting quite some distance from the subject of this article. The question was why are the Dutch and Tungning more worth mentioning than say the Spanish, and the answer is that the sources say they are more significant. Kanguole 02:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiwiLimeli, frankly instead of accusing other editors of "not spending time doing research" (or suffering from "group psychosis") you could just provide an appropriate source for your claims. DrIdiot (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

See body. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that the people you accuse with have provided such sourcing, while you have not. DrIdiot (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"The question was why are the Dutch and Tungning more worth mentioning than say the Spanish, and the answer is that the sources say they are more significant." Where's the RS from Kanguole? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For example, in Chapter 3 of Chou's An Illustrated History of Taiwan, the Spanish are only mentioned in passing in the chapter about European colonization of Taiwan. If you have a general text on Taiwanese history that places greater emphasis on the Spanish, I would be curious to hear about it. DrIdiot (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you Kanguole? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Where's the source that proves Tungning is more important than the Spanish? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The one I just cited. DrIdiot (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not a "proof" -- but you're never going to find a "proof" of the statement you want. It's an assessment of weight. DrIdiot (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This is your own synthesis. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Any account of the period (e.g. those of Andrade and Wells cited in the article) will make clear that the Spanish colony was enormously more limited in size, duration, ambition and effect than the Dutch colony or Zheng rule. Kanguole 10:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I partially reverted edits in the intro about ROC "retaining" Taiwan. "Retreat" is better, better communicates that the government completely relocated to Taiwan. This is a major event in Taiwanese history. DrIdiot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"After defeating the Kingdom of Tungning on the island" is inaccurate – the Qing defeated them in a naval battle off Penghu, landed on the island and negotiated a surrender – but this is the kind of detail that doesn't belong in the lead. It also reflects a focus on events rather than periods of Taiwan's history.

When there are two mentions of a thing in a sentence, one gets a more readable result by replacing the second with a pronoun than the first. Similarly, some of the inversions of sentences were harder to read. Kanguole 15:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Will be fixed. Technically "on the island" modifies "Kingdom of Tungning" not "defeating". WikiwiLimeli (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, some sources describe Koxinga as a Ming loyalist, while others point out that he acknowledged the authority of no Ming prince, and his motives were ambiguous. This is the sort of can of worms that we don't want to open in the brief summary in the introduction. Kanguole 11:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Independent Taiwanese and Western sources consider Koxinga as a Ming loyalist. No RS has been shown to say otherwise. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Independent Taiwanese and Western sources consider Koxinga to be much more complicated than that... Note that many say he *was* a Ming loyalist but by the time he succeeded in driving the Dutch from their possessions on Taiwan the Ming rump state didn’t exist anymore. The Southern Ming ceases to exist in 1662. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant. After France surrendered to Germany in WWII, there were still elements loyal to the French Republic. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Communication was slow back in the days. Koxinga was fighting under the Ming banner; that's what counted. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The situation was complex, even before his move to Taiwan, and moreso afterwards. See the cited articles by Stuve and by Wells for more nuance. This is precisely the kind of complexity that cannot be summarized adequately in the limited space of the lead. Kanguole 10:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The Ming ended in 1644... The Southern Ming which ended in 1662 was at best a rump state of the Ming (most sources say that instead of a true rump state it was just a bunch of refugees and disenfranchises nobility with pretensions of grandeur). How is that comparable to WWII France? When you say “Ming banner” do you mean “Southern Ming” banner? Also communication was slow, but not decades slow... Are you suggesting that Koxinga was unaware of the fall of the Ming in 1662? Seriously? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Status paragraph in lead

I have reverted a change to the fourth paragraph of the lead, which deals with Taiwan's political status. Some specific objections:

The edit replaced

The ROC is no longer a member of the UN, having been replaced by the PRC in 1971.

with

Many states and the U.N. switched recognition to the PRC in 1971.

The UN doesn't recognize states; other states do. The fact that the ROC is no longer a UN member is pretty important, and should be stated clearly. The switch of recognition by other countries have been ongoing from 1949 to the present. Indeed the UN change happened in 1971 because that was when the PRC had collected enough states to swing the vote.

The thing is, China never changed as a member nation, only the government (ROC --> PRC) representing it. What about "The ROC no longer represents China as a member of the UN, after many nations voted for the PRC instead in 1971" ] (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The edit replaced

Taiwan is claimed by the PRC, which refuses diplomatic relations with countries that recognise the ROC.

with

The PRC and the ROC each required diplomatic allies to recognize itself as the sole representative of China, although Taiwan has relaxed this requirement since the 1990s.

This omits the rather important fact of the ROC claim, while expanding with the sort of detail that does not belong in the lead. If the aim is to present the situation as symmetrical, the problem is that it just isn't. (Minor point: the article cited says the recognition policy was changed in a ministerial statement in March 1988.) Kanguole 23:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t even think it was technically a switch... The KMT/ROC pulled an “Ahah! But I quit before you can fire me!” when they saw the writing on the wall and withdrew from the UN. The CCP/PRC stepped into an empty seat rather than the seat being forcefully transitioned. Yes its a technicality but I think it demonstrates the perils of going any deeper in the intro than we already do, it just spirals. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"The ROC and the PRC have overlapping territorial claims; Taiwan, but not China, no longer refuses diplomatic relations with countries that recognise the other side." WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is trying so hard to approximate a non-existent symmetry that it omits or obscures the crucial points. The ROC's claims are theoretical, and even what they are has been unclear for decades. The PRC simply claims all of Taiwan's territory and backs that claim with explicit military threats. That the ROC refused dual recognition until March 1988 is a historical detail. The PRC's policy is central to the current diplomatic situation. Kanguole 20:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Combine sentences into "The ROC no longer represents China as a member of the UN, after many nations in 1971 voted for the PRC, who claims ROC-controlled Taiwan." That PRC refuses diplomatic relations with countries that recognise the ROC is not the only reason nor the prevailing historical reason why countries switched recognition or were forced to side with only 1 of the 2 governments. It belongs better in the body with other, more detailed arguments. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this revert, "complicated" was the result of a bold edit rather than talkpage consensus. I agree that it's inadequate – quantum electrodynamics is complicated, but everyone who understands it agrees on how it works, whereas the central feature of Taiwan's status is disagreement. Perhaps "controversial" isn't ideal, but it's certainly more appropriate than "complicated". Kanguole 10:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, a bold edit where no one objects is an edit consensus, especially since SmokeyJoe announced their change here on the talk page. It's been there long enough that it has become the stable version. intforce (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This talk page has been rather busy. The change has been there less than a month, and User:053pvr just objected and got reverted. Now that two editors object, do you have any view on the substance? Kanguole 11:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

After reading your erudite exposition above, Kanguole, I definitely agree that, while "controversial" isn't ideal, it's certainly more appropriate than "complicated". BushelCandle (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"The political status of Taiwan is complicated". Note and read the bluelink. This is complicated, perhaps more so than quantum electrodynamics (note that political status of Taiwan is a much larger page size than quantum electrodynamics). The political status of Taiwan is frequently called a "controversy", but this controversy is not controversial, it is a very well documented and described controversy, and it includes elements that are controversial. "is complicated" alludes to there being many details, which can be read at the linked article. The controversy, the political status of Taiwan, is complicated, but not controversial. English is funny. The lede sentence of the fourth paragraph, which this is, needs to flow. As a matter of writing flow, I think "is complicated" works better because the rest of the paragraph unloads complicated details, not controversial details. I like "is complicated" because it is a common Chinese euphemism used on these sorts of matters. Looking at synonyms, of controversial, of complicated possibilities include: "contentious" or "in dispute", or "can of worms". Whatever the word choice at the end of the sentence, the paragraph needs to expand on it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with your linguistic analysis – it feels like a mismatch to say that the political status of Taiwan is a controversy. It is an issue, or a question, about which there is much controversy.

The fact that "is complicated" is being used as a euphemism, or to stand for one, is precisely why it should be avoided in encyclopedic writing.

Of the alternatives, "contentious", "in dispute" or "disputed" would be fine, and reflected by the rest of the paragraph. Kanguole 10:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The other article starts with “The controversy regarding the political status of Taiwan”. That works. “the political status of Taiwan is a controversy” does not work.
"The political status of Taiwan is contentious”. I think that works. It is certainly contentious to some. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What about "contested"? DrIdiot (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"The political status of Taiwan is contested"? I think "no" because it is not contested that Taiwan has a political status. "The independence of Taiwan is contested", but that is a bigger can of worms, Taiwan does not claim independence, a lot more words would be needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with "contentious" DrIdiot (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Current: Many countries maintain unofficial diplomatic ties with Taiwan through representative offices and institutions that function as de facto embassies and consulates. International organisations in which the PRC participates either refuse to grant membership to Taiwan or allow it to participate only on a non-state basis. Taiwan is a member of the World Trade Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and Asian Development Bank under various names. Domestically, the major political contention is between parties favouring eventual Chinese unification and promoting a Chinese identity contrasted with those aspiring to independence and promoting Taiwanese identity, although both sides have moderated their positions to broaden their appeal. Proposed: Many countries maintain unofficial diplomatic ties with Taiwan through representative offices that function as de facto embassies. Taiwan is a non-state member of the World Trade Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Asian Development Bank, and a few other international organizations that allow its participation regardless of PRC pressure. Domestically, a major political contention is between parties favouring the status quo or eventual Chinese unification as opposed to those promoting Taiwanese identity and aspiring for independence, although both sides have moderated their positions to broaden their appeal. Rationale: The current version is often repetitive, disorderly, awkwardly worded, as well as presumptuous in its generalizations. I omitted reference to Chinese identity because it was not conveyed accurately, in the sense that the Chinese identity promoted in Taiwan is alongside and inclusive of, not exclusive of, a Taiwanese identity, which might not have been some readers' impression. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there are two totally separate issues here. One is participation in international organizations, and two is domestic politics. For (1), maybe "despite" is better than "regardless" otherwise seems okay but other seems mostly horizontal to me. The main difference to me is that the new one says explicitly that Taiwan cannot participate as full members in organizations where PRC has a say, and has an explicit allusion to PRC pressure, whereas the old one kind of takes a passive voice.

For (2), the framing of status quo as being on the same side as unification is totally false. Status quo is vague, think "independent voter." If you want "evidence" just look at the Chengchi poll -- how could the DPP ever win any election if status quo meant pan-Blue? I agree that identity issues don't always line up exactly with political issues, but I think the original is a good enough approximation: one side is clearly more committed to a sense of Taiwanese identity and the other side clearly more commited to a sense of pan-Chinese identity. DrIdiot (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, see below. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"and consulates" seems accurate and reasonable.

I don't think the proposed version is more explicit, as it fails to mention the restrictions on Taiwan's membership, and tacking "regardless of PRC pressure" on the end is oblique and vague. Also placing a long list in the middle of the sentence makes it hard to read. If it is necessary to make the link explicit, perhaps "Under PRC pressure, major international organizations either refuse to grant membership to Taiwan or allow it to participate only on a non-state basis." It doesn't seem necessary to list organizations.

"a major" instead of "the major" is more unnecessary vagueness.

I agree that "status quo" can't be placed on one side; in any case it is covered by "eventual" and "moderated". Perhaps "pan-Chinese identity" would be clearer than "Chinese identity". Kanguole 16:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"and consulates" is not wrong, it just doesn't seem necessary to emphasize its difference from embassies in the lead. Most readers should be able to understand the general message without it. "the major" is a judgment call presuming no other issues are as important. That might be true, but we should let the readers to decide. Regarding participation in international organizations, the PRC can't dictate which side they pick (even the UN requires a vote), only threaten to withdraw its own participation, contributions, etc. if it chooses that approach. To be clear, we can say "due to PRC foreign policy, international organizations must often choose between either the PRC or the ROC, or accept Taiwan on a non-state basis in cases such as the WTO, APEC, and ADB." WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"defacto embassies" rather that "defacto embassies and consulates" may be an incorrect description of many of these offices.

"the major" is well documented in the sources. In such a situation, we should be clear.

The final proposal is more faux symmetry. I suppose it is technically correct, but it is completely misleading, as in fact all major international organizations have included the PRC and restricted Taiwan. Kanguole 11:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the proposed sentence never claims to include every single one of such offices, and therefore there is no need to make sure that the term we use covers every single case of them. As long some offices function as de facto embassies, the sentence would be correct. Second, the linked article is titled "de facto embassy", and its body already covers consular services. There's no need to waste words in the lead for such a minor, unnecessary point of differentiation.

There's no such thing as 'faux symmetry'. Something is either symmetric or not. The fact is organizations do have a choice, under no threat of force or coercion. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point? "Faux symmetry" means your sentence asserts a symmetry when there isn't one. The symmetry being asserted is that ROC and PRC have similar stances regarding each other's membership in orgs. The claim is that this is not true, i.e. "faux". DrIdiot (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You are just making sh_t up now. First, each country historically required third-parties to recognize itself exclusively. Second, what I proposed was that international organizations have a choice between the two countries, which is true. You are the one who keeps coming up with lies and falsehood about me. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Calm down. Which side, the ROC or PRC, is making organizations choose? Is it one, or both? DrIdiot (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I claim it is only the PRC. Statements about "choice" should reflect this asymmetry. That's the point. DrIdiot (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The asymmetry that Kangoule refers to, appears to be different, i.e. that most organizations have chosen the PRC over ROC. That is, there is an asymmetry in result. DrIdiot (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your remark that organizations have a choice under no threat is also false. The PRC threatens to pull out. To orgs, this matters for various reasons, e.g. resources, but also legitimacy. This is a critical point and shouldn't be waved away as organizations merely exercising "choice". DrIdiot (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You might be misunderstanding what threat means, what false means, and what choice means. The critical fact is that there's no actual "threat" from PRC against international organizations. They were never entitled to PRC participation, its resources, a greater level of legitimacy, etc. For that matter, neither are they entitled to having ROC or both countries onboard. International orgs cannot lose what they were never entitled to in the first place. It's the same with diplomatic recognitions. Countries can choose PRC for a greater benefit to them or ROC for less. Whichever choice they exercise, and they can do so freely (which is why ROC still have official diplomatic allies), they only stand to gain more or gain less but not to lose. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The PRC threatens to break off ties should orgs admit ROC. The ROC does not threaten to break off ties with orgs that admit PRC. That is an asymmetry. "Choice" does not communicate it properly. I'm opposed to the wording. DrIdiot (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

PRC threatens to withdraw itself, not against orgs. The asymmetry relates to PRC vs ROC foreign policy, not to the choice that the orgs have. You are confusing 2 different things and switching back and forth between them. The proposed wording is true and accurate regarding both the orgs as well as PRC's policy: "due to PRC foreign policy, international organizations must often choose between either the PRC or the ROC, or accept Taiwan on a non-state basis in cases such as the WTO, APEC, and ADB." But we can also say "in order to secure PRC participation, international organizations often do not admit Taiwan, or do so only on a non-state basis as it is the case with the WTO, APEC, and ADB," if this sits more closely to what you want to emphasize. Difference in policy stance between PRC and ROC would go into an earlier sentence near where diplomatic recognition was first brought up. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the current wording is best. It describes the status in indisputable terms (ROC is not a member if PRC is) in a way that suggests the reason (the PRC) without specifics that cannot be verified. There are problems with what you suggest because the reasons are complex, variable, and somewhat unknown (i.e. not clearly documented). It's also bloating the lead. It's unclear what your objection is to the original text is. DrIdiot (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

My objection to the current text is that instead of organizing ideas point-by-point and going through them, it patches together diplomacy, claims, NGOs, not being admitted, being admitted, jumping between points and sprinkling similar ideas throughout the paragraph. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Another important issue is non-state member vs. non-membership. The PRC doesn't have an official policy that prohibits Taiwan from participating as a non-state member. Yet they exercise their influence to prohibit Taiwan anyway (e.g. WHO), often as a political weapon. Your wording doesn't account for this. DrIdiot (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Dude, you're going around in circles. The part about PRC influence prohibiting Taiwan (altogether) is already covered by my proposed statement in the part that says "international organizations often do not admit Taiwan". Also, PRC supported Taiwan's participation in WHO during the previous administration, so its policy is not against Taiwan categorically but also depends on the administration. The level of nuance you brought up is a better fit for the body, but in any case, that scenario is already covered as stated earlier. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly can't even find your latest proposed version, it's gone through so many partial revisions. Can you re-state it? DrIdiot (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

OK I see it: "in order to secure PRC participation, international organizations often do not admit Taiwan". The problem is this is not true. Excluding Taiwan isn't a condition for PRC participation. As you say, sometimes they allow it, sometimes they do not. The point is: the PRC applies pressure in myriad ways to exclude or limit Taiwan or otherwise, for variable purposes. It's probably best if you re-propose the text you would like to add for clarity. DrIdiot (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggested "PRC pressure" initially but you and Kanguole were somewhat ambivalent about it. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I compeltely misread the proposed text, I thought it said "due to PRC pressure." I agree "regardless of PRC pressure" is puzzling. I'm in favor of the original text, it's vague in the right ways. It just says what the outcome is, and doesn't assert it to be the outcome of a particular policy. I'm fine with "Under PRC pressure" if we can find an RS. DrIdiot (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiwiLimeli, I don’t think you posses the necessary competence when it comes to this topic to be drafting sections for the lead... Within Taiwanese domestic politics there are *three* major camps not two, status quo is a position in its own right not part of the two others. I would also note that status quo factions exist within both the KMT and DPP and in fact those factions are currently dominant within both parties. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A lot of this churn in the lead is pointless and reduces clarity. For example, here the PRC claim and refusal of double recognition is moved from before the small number of recognitions, with which it is directly connected. Kanguole 11:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The re-positioning of "claims" was suggested back on 07:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC). The part about refusal of double-recognition was moved up together because it's been PRC's long-standing practice since the change in the UN if not even earlier. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A chronological organization makes sense for the history paragraphs, but for the status paragraph it makes more sense to group things that are related. Kanguole 23:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Kangoule. DrIdiot (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Democratization in lead and territorial claims

I added a line in the lead that indicates that the ROC has downplayed its claim to China since democratization. This is supported by RS in the body and is important to note that this claim is not being actively pursued. However, this creates a stylistic issue where democratization is mentioned before it is introduced in the next paragraph. The solution I came up with was to move discussion of democratization to the preceding paragraph, which is about history, while the paragraph it is currently in seems to mostly talk about the economy (though the two are not always easy to separate). I made the change, but leaving this here in case we want to discuss. It's not a perfect solution b/c now it's not chronological, and open to comments/changes. DrIdiot (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Another solution would be to keep the bit about democratization in the original paragraph (after Taiwan Miracle, i.e. preserve chronology) and just allude to it in the previous paragraph. Personally agnostic about which is better. DrIdiot (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I would argue for the second approach. Making it an ancillary to the discussion of the territorial claim de-emphasizes a really crucial part of the history, and moves it out of its context. I would just say "downplayed since the 1990s." Also, the "since" in the previous sentence would be better before "been". Kanguole 22:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to move the sentence about the claim to the fourth paragraph (returning the democratization sentence to the second sentence of the third paragraph). Kanguole 22:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think this makes the most sense actually. I'll work on it. DrIdiot (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry missed the earlier reply. I agree with the 1st comment as well, let me just do that since it's a bit simpler and maybe leave the door open to moving it to 4th graf. DrIdiot (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

OK worked it into the 4th graf, had to do a little rewording. DrIdiot (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think democratization (which began as early as the 1980s) fits better in the preceding paragraph about socio-economic development, as Taiwan is simultaneously one of the best economies and most socially-liberal countries in Asia. The last paragraph about current political status is not really about its past history of democratization anymore. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The quote in question isn't primarily about democratization (I don't want to get into when it "started" -- this is a semantics question). It's about downplay of claims over China, which fits well in the 4th graf. However, it's connected to democratization per the RS in the body. I think we should restore this connection, because it's important context, and not an accident. DrIdiot (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

For the most part, the body emphasizes the emergence of pan-Green parties that favor independence. Pan-Blue still favors eventual unification, creating a split. This is somewhat different from officially claiming or not claiming to represent China, which comes more from a legal standpoint and the ROC's constitution. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

We're not talking about what the ROC constitution says "officially". We're talking about what the government has chosen to emphasize and what not to. Hence, the word "downplay." Gone are the days when the ROC actively asserted its claims over Mongolia/China. The link with democratization isn't casual, but it's discussed in many RS, e.g. Corduff -- that localization happened alongside democratization/liberalization. DrIdiot (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is about legitimate representative of China, which is what I've been talking about--representation (legal, constitutional, in the UN, etc) as the RoC regardless of territorial control. But you've been talking about, I quote here, "the ROC has downplayed its claim to China" and "It's about downplay of claims over China," including the ref you just provided. These are territorial claims, not a change in terms of representation. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly confused, but perhaps we are not in disagreement that the mention of democratization as a major event in the 90s is important context regarding the phenomenon of downplaying territorial claims then. DrIdiot (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It can't get any simpler. All your sources are about downplaying ROC territorial claims, which is not the same as representing China, or not, in its constitution or in the UN. Either change the second part or the first part of the sentence. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok I just added both points. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Still confused as to what you're referring to. You think ROC territorial claims and claims to representing China (in the UN or otherwise) are unrelated????? DrIdiot (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan can gain, lose, or claim territory as the RoC or anything else. Representation of China depends on not just territory under control but also political factors. Case in point, the UN supported the RoC as the representative of China despite it having lost the mainland for 20+ years. Serious proposals were made by member nations to consider the ROC as a second Chinese state. Your RS mentions only territorial claims being relaxed. Equating that with not representing China is original research. In order to include both perspectives, I retained your edits, only adding clarification as to what's actually been downplayed. But no, you seem to care about your position only at the expense of mine. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No, my RS discusses broadly a process by which the ROC (1) revised history books with an emphasis on Taiwan rather than China, and (2) removed Chinese symbols from banknotes. That was in *1997*. In 2018 they merged Chinese history with East Asian history . This indicates a de-emphasis on the ROC as a representative of China in a very broad sense. Frankly, I am confused as to what your perspective actually is. My perspective is that the ROC underwent (and is undergoing) a de-sinicization, which includes the elimination of the idea that the ROC (does or hopes to) represents China. DrIdiot (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose You are synthesizing your own thesis and forcing that into the lead. De-sinicization does not belong in the political status paragraph. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even proposing anything. I am not proposing to add the above to the lead. I am suggesting that "ROC representing China" (in a BROAD sense, not just in the UN) includes "ROC claims Chinese territory" and therefore it is unnecessary to insert the latter into the lead. DrIdiot (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding right? For the past dozen or so edits, you've insisted that (1) Taiwan has downplayed its claim to be the legitimate representative of China (2) due to the reason of democratization (3) specifically since the 1990s, all of this coming right after a sentence that states "Taiwan no longer represents China in the United Nations" in the lead section in a paragraph about political status, despite your RS and the body discussing nothing but (1)territorial claims or (2)cultural de-sinicization. If this is not original research/synthesis, nothing is. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want a source that says it explicitly on that extremely narrow point: , under "The KMT's Changing Stance on National Identity Issues" where it discusses Lee's policy of "Two Chinas" (i.e. no longer claiming to be the "legitimate" representative). DrIdiot (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

A doctoral thesis is RS now? Isn't this just a re-hash of your old argument? If you want to emphasize how democratization has lead to cultural de-sinicization and a more Taiwanese identity, that's already covered in the paragraph's last sentence. There's nothing in the thesis's preview and ToC indicating the RoC, the government itself, officially distancing itself from being a representative of China, internationally or domestically. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and it's been published in an academic book (specifically, this one ). I already indicated the section within. BTW this probably isn't the best reference, literally just pulled open the first paper I had open and found a passage. DrIdiot (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

From your edit summary: (The body of the article only says that the ROC has not renounced claims. This is different from claiming that the ROC continues to claim.); not having renounced claims is exactly the same as retaining claims, which was the wording that you removed. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not the same. Not renouncing is passive. Retaining is ambiguous. It's also not a good word to use; it means "continue to have" but you don't "have" a claim. DrIdiot (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

More on this point: . DrIdiot (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Failed verification The first source discusses removal of ancient Chinese history such as the Three Kingdoms. The second source is an opinion piece on why some conservatives were upset at the change. None discusses RoC and its representation. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems to be a modus operandi of yours to accuse other editors of holding grudges against you. But in fact, I have not edited the lead since your last edits yesterday, other than to replace some links. DrIdiot (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

However, your recent edits haven't gotten consensus here, and I and others apparently don't agree with all of them. There are a lot of new claims in there (e.g. "anti-communist sentiments"). I will revert them. DrIdiot (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Real people in Taiwan would laugh at any suggestion by English-speaking editors that they were not anti-communist, historically or today. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

"Anti-communism" has a very specific meaning. You need RS to establish it as a mainstream ideology in Taiwan. Antipathy to the CCP is not enough. DrIdiot (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If there's no disagreement about edits, I'm not inclined to continue the argument. Is there one? DrIdiot (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's regarding this edit: then I don't agree with it. "Representing China" doesn't exclusively refer to representation in the UN, and in any case it obviously entails a territorial claim to China. I think what we have is sufficient for the lead. DrIdiot (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"current political issues"

I removed the following section, which seems inappropriate in a general article on Taiwan. I am pasting it below because I think some of this content is valuable and could be incorporated in appropriate pages. It just doesn't seem to be standard practice to discuss these very specific "current political issues" on a country's main page.

Other major political issues include the passage of an arms procurement bill that the United States authorized in 2001. In 2008, however, the United States was reluctant to send more arms to Taiwan, concerned that it would hinder recent improvements to relations between the PRC and the ROC. Another major political issue is the establishment of a National Communications Commission to take over from the Government Information Office, whose advertising budget exercised great control over the media.

The politicians and their parties have themselves become major political issues. Corruption among some DPP administration officials had been exposed. In early 2006, President Chen Shui-bian was linked to possible corruption. The political effect on President Chen Shui-bian was great, causing a division in the DPP leadership and supporters alike. It eventually led to the creation of a political camp led by ex-DPP leader Shih Ming-teh which believed the president should resign. The KMT assets continue to be another major issue, as it was once the richest political party in the world. Nearing the end of 2006, KMT's chairman Ma Ying-jeou was also hit by corruption controversies, although he has since then been cleared of any wrongdoings by the courts. After completing his second term as President, Chen Shui-bian was charged with corruption and money laundering. Following conviction, he was sentenced to a 19-year sentence in Taipei Prison, reduced from a life sentence on appeal; he was later granted medical parole, on 5 January 2015.

Taiwan's leaders, including President Tsai and Premier William Lai, have repeatedly accused China of spreading fake news via social media to create divisions in Taiwanese society, influence voters and support candidates more sympathetic to Beijing ahead of the 2018 Taiwanese local elections. China has been accused of conducting hybrid warfare against Taiwan.

Capital punishment is still used in Taiwan, although efforts have been made by the government to reduce the number of executions. Between 2005 and 2009, capital punishment was stopped. Nevertheless, according to a survey in 2006, about 80% of Taiwanese still wanted to keep the death penalty.

DrIdiot (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Michael S. Chase (4 September 2008). "Caliber – Asian Survey – 48(4):703 – Abstract". Asian Survey. 48 (4): 703–724. doi:10.1525/as.2008.48.4.703.
2. David Isenberg. "US Keeps Taiwan at Arm's Length". Cato.org. Retrieved 29 May 2009.
3. "NCC relinquishes power over China-related media". Taipei Times. 9 August 2007. Retrieved 29 May 2009.
4. Bristow, Michael (26 October 2001). "Wealth probe for 'world's richest' party". BBC News. Retrieved 12 November 2007.
5. "Court clears Ma of graft charges". China Post. 25 April 2008. Retrieved 29 May 2009.
6. "Chen Shui-bian lied about Lien Chan-endorsed check". China Post. 3 October 2008. Retrieved 29 May 2009.
7. "Chen Shui-bian now prisoner No. 1020". Taipei Times. 4 December 2010. p. 1.
8. Wang, Chris (26 July 2012). "Chen Shui-bian backers urge immediate release". Taipei Times. p. 3. Retrieved 11 November 2020.
9. "Chen Shui-bian released". Taipei Times. 6 January 2015. p. 1. Retrieved 11 November 2020.
10. "'Fake news' rattles Taiwan ahead of elections". Al Jazeera. 23 November 2018.
11. "Analysis: 'Fake news' fears grip Taiwan ahead of local polls". BBC Monitoring. 21 November 2018.
12. "Fake news: How China is interfering in Taiwanese democracy and what to do about it". Taiwan News. 23 November 2018.
13. "China's Hybrid Warfare and Taiwan". The Diplomat. 13 January 2018.
14. "China's hybrid warfare against Taiwan". The Washington Post. 14 December 2018.
15. ^ Chang, Rich (2 January 2006). "Nation keeps death penalty, but reduces executions". Taipei Times. Retrieved 2 November 2009.
16. Sui, Cindy (27 October 2011). "Taiwan pays compensation for wrongful execution". BBC News. Retrieved 28 May 2019.

Commonality

To try and forestall unproductive edit wars about the variety of English used in this article while avoiding a mix of US English and non-US English spellings of the same words in the very same article, I would encourage all editors to explore the opportunities for using synonyms for words that have different spellings in US English and non-US English.

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Taiwan/Archive_31#English_variety%3A_non-consensual_changes for the background to this plea. BushelCandle (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Claims over the mainland (Again)

So I wasn't able to get around to this due to personal issues at home, but I still consider the issue of having the label of "as interpreted by the Kuomintang" on the official maps to not have been resolved (original conversation can be seen ]). After reading through the provided sources provided in favor of the pro-"as interpreted by the Kuomintang" label side, I couldn't find any evidence that suggested that the Mainland claims have been dropped, and also after looking through past news articles I couldn't find anything that shows the DPP has ever dropped the claims despite their official political opposition to it. Not only that, there have been recorded instances of the ROC having recorded their border claims regarding the mainland , and that there have been no recorded instances of any government be it under the KMT or the DPP going through any constitutional or legal method that have changed that, at least not to my knowledge. So I support reopening the discussion. JadeEditor (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As in you disagree it's KMT's position? Or it's more than just KMT's position? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The latter. I don't disagree it is a KMT position. JadeEditor (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The provisional constitution is not too relevant -- those clauses didn't make it into the actual constitution. Nat'l boundaries are not specified in the Constitution. In Constitutional Interpretation 328 the CC ruled that national boundaries are to be determined by LY and EY. Per LY, Act Gov. Rel. btwn. ppl. of TW area and ML area, ML area is considered ROC territory (from '91), but it's not specified what "ML area" actually is. In practice it correlates to *citizenship* and not an actual physical area of land -- EY has interpreted people of ML area = PRC nationals. However, the current map includes Mongolia, and Mongolians are not covered under the Act. With HK and Macau there is a separate Act Gov. Rel. btwn HK+Macau, but it doesn't categorize these two as ROC territory. So question: is Mongolia, or HK within ROC territory? It's vague. Weak evidence for, weak evidence against. So you are correct DPP has never acted to change this particular status quo re:ML area (but it has acted disbanded Mongolian/Tibetan Affairs Comm. + set up embassy w/ Mongolia, which one could read as changing national boundaries, but again, vague). Furthermore, the nat'l boundaries have not been made explicit: there is no ROC law that specifies exactly what the national boundaries are. So (as with everything ROC) there is some guesswork, and I'm not sure there's any RS that's tried to really nail it down. Anyway, this is all of course my own analysis. Tldr: it's a massive headache. (Note: Taiwan Area and Free Area often used interchangably.) Regarding the map, I think the most accurate way to label it might be "maximal extent of historic territorial claims of ROC" or something to that effect, if one wants to keep it at all. DrIdiot (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the provisional constitution, by what I could tell that was official ROC law, so as far as that was concerned those lands that were included were part of the ROC de jure. And considering that reforming the constitution didn't give up those claims when they changed it to the modern one, nor did the government at the time consider these territories to be no longer part of the state, I think it still fits. And during Also I don't think that something like the disbanded Mongolian/Tibetan Affairs Commission and the establishment of a Representative Office (technically not an embassy de jure, but that's somewhat pedantic), necessarily means that the claims are no longer there. Just because the administration or policy toward a certain territory of a country has changed does not mean that one doesn't claim it or that it is no longer part of the state. I do agree that the term "maximal extent of historical territorial claims of the ROC" works better though, so perhaps we can change that JadeEditor (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I proposed it, but I support the wording "maximal historical extent of ROC territorial claims". DrIdiot (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I.e. there's a question here, which is "what does it mean for a country to claim territory?" I do not have an answer to this question. There are obvious cases (e.g. it directly administers them or explicitly claims them) -- the ROC sits squarely in the grey area. The only thing that is clearly well defined is what is the Taiwan Area . DrIdiot (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree on the grey area, in contemporary government publications there always seems to be a level of ambiguity about what exactly the extent of the ROC is but much much less ambiguity about what Taiwan is. See for instance the 2020-2021 Taiwan at a Glance. What there is absolutely no ambiguity about is that “China” alone means PRC not ROC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If you can get something in the public domain, present it as a map approved by the ROC in year XXXX, without getting into claims and the constitution. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I did find reference to this: ]. Which is legislation presupposes that the ROC does in fact claim the mainland, as the offical line regarding the mainland is that "'Mainland Area' refers to the territory of the Republic of China outside the Taiwan Area". And considering the courts have not struck it down nor have ever disagreed with it, that's a point in favor IMO. I will continue to look for more primary sources on the issue. JadeEditor (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's not disputed that ROC has not formally rescinded claims to parts of mainland China; in practice this law is applied to citizens of the PRC (excluding residents of Hong Kong; there is a separate act for that which doesn't specify Hong Kong as territory) and so doesn't define boundaries or resolve ambiguity surrounding what the "constitutional" boundaries are: i.e. does it include Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macau? Here is a map from '47 with outer Mongolia, but it's written on the map that the ROC recognizes Mongolia and the exact borders to be determined later (and the label on the map says "ROC and Mongolia", perhaps suggesting they are two separate entities, perhaps not). DrIdiot (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the issue that I started this whole conversation about though. The map on the article claims that the mainland claims as shown was merely a KMT interpretation, i.e. a position held by a political party and not much beyond that. I tried to change that as it was probably misleading at best to classify as such, but I got pushback on that which is why I started the discussion on if the ROC does claim the mainland (of which my understanding that it does). Regarding your link, while it is true that the ROC decided to recognize Mongolia, I do think there is a difference between what the state claims as it's borders and the official diplomatic relations between states. At the very least, I think we should change the label to state your "maximal extent" suggestion and continue the discussion. JadeEditor (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with "maximal historical extent" which is undoubtedly a true statement -- just pointing out the mainland area law doesn't address my concern regarding ambiguity as to which exactly which borders ROC constitution refer to, if that's the criteria one wants to use (and I'm not sure it's the best one either). For most countries, these ambiguities/issues are ironed out through actual live claims. However, with ROC there are many intervening factors, e.g. domestic politics, PRC pressure, historical geopolitical considerations, absence of recent live claims, etc. Separately, I think the idea of ROC territory has to be treated with a great deal of nuance to maintain NPOV. DrIdiot (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a question here about whether the map should be included at all. E.g. if it's just the extent of ROC historical claims, or if it's ROC claims in year 1978, why should these maps be included in the infobox when analogous maps aren't for any other country? I do agree that this thing about the map being the KMT's claims are not quite right: both the KMT and DPP today are vague about what ROC territory actually is (in terms of what it looks like on a map, not merely the existence of a "mainland area"). If they're vague about it, and RS are also vague about it (e.g. most academic RS I've looked at do not actually say that ROC claims territory beyond its jurisdiction except for minor disputes in ECS/SCS) perhaps we shouldn't include it (in the infobox -- a discussion in the body could make sense). DrIdiot (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the reason it is included isn't because we want to keep track of past claims, but because it's said that the ROC on Taiwan claims these borders NOW, and as such should be shown similarly to other countries with disputed territories (see both North and South Korea, Somalia, India, etc). JadeEditor (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Just say the map shows what the ROC Constitution refers to either in whole or in part. That should cover any "existing national boundaries". I doubt anyone would argue for it to include anything beyond the max of what the Qing held. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that the 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China only allows for an alteration of the national territory when a resolution is passed by the National Assembly (Article 4). The National Assembly has never passed such a resolution, and when it was abolished in 2005, the requirement for a change of the national territory became even more difficult, as it now requires a referendum (as stated in the Additional Articles of the ROC Constitution). Logically, this means that the ROC national territory hasn't changed since 1947, and the ROC still claims the same areas it did back in 1947. De wafelenbak (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If we're going off the constitution, then it's unclear exactly what territory ROC was claiming in 1947, and they contradict themselves multiple times thereafter. For example, ROC recognized (outer) Mongolia as a country in 1946 , but then continued to claim it e.g. in 1955, without a vote in the National Assembly, for geopolitical reasons. So I think it's an actual question: which territories belong on that map? No RS I know of has bothered to investigate this question fully (probably because it has no consequence), and attempting to answer it ourselves feels like OR. My suggestion "maximal extent" above allows us to dispense with these questions, since it's maximal. (Note: Our current map appears to be based on this one: and some non-RS maps are slightly different, e.g. ) DrIdiot (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a fair point regarding Mongolia, although even though the recognition of Mongolia happened before the establishment of the National Assembly method of territorial changes, there is a difference between officially recognizing a sovereign state and officially rescinding any territorial claims, just as a point to keep note of. That's not to say you're wrong though, and I think we should consider your "maximal extent" idea. JadeEditor (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

In the recent map published by the government, the ROC does not claim the mainland, but it claims islands in the South China Sea, including the Paracel Islands and the Chungsha Islands which are currently administered by the PRC.7tiu (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at said source, and while that map does show mostly Taiwan as well as the South China Sea, considering that this map was made with the focus of Taiwan the conventional island in mind (you know, the modern borders of the ROC that most of the international English-speaking community associates with the term "Taiwan", I have concerns if that really seems like an appropriate map to use. JadeEditor (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Such a map is legally irrelevant, but I think this would be a good candidate for a map with “territories actively claimed by the ROC”. The current “ROC constitutional territorial claims” map could then be renamed “Maximal possible extent of the ROC national territory”. De wafelenbak (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thats an interesting statement given that the Supreme Court has ruled that the question is not a legal one and can not be answered by legal analysis if the constitution. If you’re looking for a "legally relevant” map such a thing does not exist although theoretically it could exist in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the ROC position on Taiwan? Since they claim it was never part of China, then it may be that the ROC has no territorial claims at all. TFD (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is maintained that Taiwan was annexed to the ROC after WW2 (as can be seen explained ]). So it's not that it was "never part of China", but that "it wasn't part of China until it was". JadeEditor (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Care to elaborate??? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If the Republic of China has no claim over the mainland and considers Taiwan to not be part of the Republic of China, then it would appear to have no territorial claims. TFD (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

We're just going back to what the Constitution means by "existing national boundaires" then. Although I doubt ROC is giving up any claim on Taiwan; that's like 1 of the foremost reasons not to let the PRC have it lol. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Just pointing out that in 1947, Taiwan was under ROC military occupation on behalf of the World War II Allies. The sovereignty of Taiwan still belonged to Japan until 1952, when the Treaty of San Francisco and the Treaty of Taipei came into effect. The National Assembly has never passed a resolution to include Taiwan in the ROC national territory after 1952. 7tiu (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

By what I can tell, the ROC government considered the territory annexed in 1945 with the signing of the Japanese surrender (of which it has been argued that the Japanese right then gave up their claims to Taiwan), thereby superseding the National Assembly issue. To my understanding this was because the surrender indicated adherence to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. JadeEditor (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Re:TFD When they are saying Taiwan was never part of China, China=PRC, Taiwan=ROC≠China. The confusion comes from the sloppy English translation of the country name. The Chinese name of ROC does not imply that ROC is China. 7tiu (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So the sequence of events is:

1912 ROC founded as successor state to the Empire of China

1945 ROC acquires Taiwan as its administering state

1946 ROC recognizes Mongolia as separate country

1949 ROC cedes mainland to PRC

1912-2021 sometime between these two dates, ROC no longer considers the mainland to be part of the ROC

That leaves the ROC with no integral territory. But it continues to administer Taiwan as a colony, protectorate or overseas territory.

TFD (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You forgot Kinmen, Mazu and Wuqiu, which have continuously been part of the ROC. The ROC never ceded the Mainland to the PRC, so that is definitely also part of its constitutional national territory. And the ROC most definitely considers Taiwan a full part of its territory. De wafelenbak (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"1949 ROC cedes mainland to PRC” this part never happened though (can you imagine El Generalissimo doing that?). The PRC wasn’t even done taking the mainland yet, that would take them into the 1950s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, when I said that the ROC claimed mainland China, you replied, "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). So is it now your opinion that the Republic of China claims that mainland China is part of the Republic of China?

You’re offering a false dichotomy, nothing about those two positions is mutually exclusive. Do you wish to supply WP:RS which say that in "1949 ROC cedes mainland to PRC” because none that we currently have on the page appear to. Note that mainland China includes Hainan which the KMT didn’t lose until 1950 as well as Tibet which the CCP did not take until later in the 1950s and which the KMT never controlled. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This discussion thread is called "Claims over the mainland (Again)." Is mainland China (whether including or excluding Hainan or Tibet) part of or not part of the ROC? TFD (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

When? If the answer is today then no... If the answer is in 1912 then yes. Between those two points most answers are less black and white. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering that I couldn't find any reference toward the borders having officially been changed from them, in my view the answer is yes, at least from a de jure perspective (de facto that's obviously not the case). JadeEditor (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I changed the entry to reflect your input. But the conclusion would be that same: "That leaves the ROC with no integral territory. But it continues to administer Taiwan as a colony, protectorate or overseas territory."

JadeEditor, that was always my understanding. However, some editors hold a different view and I was trying to understand it. I believe they are saying that the PRC has no legitimate claim to Taiwan and that the ROC only claims Taiwan, hence Taiwan is a sovereign state. But my question is if Taiwan was never formally integrated into the ROC, then how can the ROC claim it is part of the ROC today.

TFD (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The PRC point is in my view irrelevant to the purposes of discussion, since this is an article about the ROC, not the PRC. And regarding that point of the ROC not having a claim to Taiwan, not even pan-green administrations that I know of have gone down that path. Both Chen Shui-bian and Tsai Ing-wen admit that they are or were the President of the Republic of China, which governs Taiwan. Heck, by what I can tell, that's the whole point of their legitimacy to govern Taiwan to begin with. So I don't think it would be too out of character to classify the fact that "Taiwan is part of the ROC" has a mass consensus in contemporary law and politics in Taiwan. JadeEditor (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think TFD is assuming certain arguments are the only arguments behind ROC claims. We try not to dismiss alternative viewpoints outright here, but overall the big picture is pretty straight-forward. Both PRC and ROC base their claims on the Qing. Of course, there are debatable points due to historical complexities, but for the most part it's accepted. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that the ROC did not claim Taiwan, but that according to some editors, it claims it as an external territory, i.e., administered by the ROC but not part of the ROC. By comparison, Puerto Rico is claimed by and administered by the U.S., but not part of the U.S. That is consistent with the Treaty of San Francisco 1951 that held the status of Taiwan to be unsettled and seems to be the position of the U.S. government and Taiwan separatists. Incidentally, when I said that some people think the PRC has no legitimate claim to Taiwan, I was not referring to the position of the PRC. (FYI, the PRC claims that Taiwan is part of the PRC, not that it matters.) Incidentally, when I describe a position, that does not necessarily mean that I agree with it. TFD (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe to get things moving, some concrete proposals for a new caption:

• (a)Maximal historical extent of ROC territorial claims
• (b) 1947 ROC territorial claims

Feel free to propose your own. My concern with anything more specific is ambiguity over Hong Kong and Mongolia. Both tend to be included in old maps. However in practice the government has not treated residents of these territories as people in the "mainland area" which they would be constitutionally bound to do so by definition in this act , i.e. the government is deliberately ambiguous regarding its claims today. DrIdiot (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Hong Kong and Macau, I don't think we'll have to worry about that since Hong Kong isn't really shown too much on the map to begin with (it's so small that I can't tell if it's highlighted or not). But the Mongolia issue you do have a point. I personally do still think the Mainland claims still apply, but in line with keeping it as vauge as possible in order not to upset any potential controversy something like "Maximum extent of ROC territorial claims should at the very least be an improvement, although I will still note that even if we change it this conversation still isn't over. JadeEditor (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah you can't see Hong Kong on the zoomed out map. But if you zoom in, it is definitely shaded in. DrIdiot (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd go with (a); (b) is a bit too specific considering the vagueness of the 1947 Constitution itself. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The 1947 constitution only establishes methods of changing official borders, not what the border itself is designated to be. Even though the constitution does mention the "mainland area" in passing, it's still not exactly state in the constitution what that specifically is. JadeEditor (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll make that change then. DrIdiot (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking for help expanding the Tangwai movement article

Seems rather short considering that it's linked to so many pages.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request over leading description on 15 March 2021

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

In the leading article it presents "...Taipei is the capital as well as the largest metropolitan area of Taiwan. Other major cities include New Taipei, Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan and Taoyuan." However, Taipei city alone is not the largest city of Taiwan, and the Taipei metropolitan area a.k.a "Greater Taipei" 大臺北 is consist of neibouring divisions of New Taipei and Keelung, or sometimes Taoyuan city as well. Thus, I request to rephrase the sentence being reviewed for a change to ...Taipei is the capital as well as the largest metropolitan area of Taiwan along with adjacent urban areas of New Taipei and Keelung. Other major cities include Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan and Taoyuan. or ...Taipei is the capital and which, along with adjacent urban areas of New Taipei and Keelung, forms the largest metropolitan area of Taiwan. Other major cities include Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan and Taoyuan. 123.195.130.73 (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

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

"Taiwan is recognized as a special administrative state of China." (not country) High Lofe (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this has been discussed to death on this talk page. You'd need to establish consensus for a change like that, it's not something that can be handled through a simple edit request. Volteer1 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Taiwan. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

70.249.170.51 (talk) 03:18, 17 March 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 extended-confirmed-protected edit requests