This is an archive of past discussions about Taiwan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If you insist on using UNDP's figure please provide UNDP's sources of Taiwan's life expectancy, expected years of schooling, and GNI per capita (adjusted for PPP). I bet you can't find it because the UNDP don't even disclose them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greysholic (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that in this context the Taiwanese governments numbers are better than UNDP. As Taiwan has a progressive and transparent democracy there isnt an issue of trust with their numbers like in dictatorships and single party states. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
You can reply to someone by using the colon, and it will indent it like this text. Please also sign your topics with four tildes (~). Although your point seems reasonable, the link leads to a page error. NickleSonic (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Greysholic: How did you come up with the conclusion that the UN (also a very highly regarded and reliable organization) would use skewed data while calculating the HDI for an entity which they have no connection with? Where are your sources? I still believe that data coming straight from the UN would be much more reliable than a calculation done by a country's own government. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk19:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:RSPRIMARY, Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. UNDP data, which is both reliable and INDEPENDENT of the Taiwanese government, is in this case the data that Wikipedia should continue to use. Taiwan shouldn't be the only country on Wikipedia to not use data published from the UNDP, just because of some editor's unsourced analysis and interpretive claims. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk19:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
But if the editor provides a couple reliable secondary sources that also makes the same claims free of WP:OR, than I will be happy to reconsider. But I am not the type of person to support a possibly inflated data value. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk19:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems like there is some confusion here — I figured it out, so let me try to explain. The value of 0.880 that the Wikipedia page currently uses does not come from UNDP. It comes from the Global Data Lab (GDL), which is the source that the Wiki page currently cites. GDL sources all its countries' data from UNDP, except for Taiwan, because UNDP does not have Taiwanese data (the GDL's academic publication detailing their database construction explains this: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201938). Thus, for Taiwan's data, GDL took the HDI values directly from the Taiwanese government website. The Taiwanese government clearly states an HDI of 0.911, as you can see from both sources linked above (the first link works now, I checked). However, for some reason GDL instead states an HDI of 0.880, which is incorrect. I contacted the director of GDL, and he responded explaining that they for some reason didn't find the Taiwanese government data in recent years, and the value of 0.880 was an extrapolation, which turned out to be incorrect. So that's where we are. The fact is that 0.911 is the correct value, and GDL would also state that value if it correctly sourced its data from the Taiwan government website. GDL says they will correct this error in the next update of their database. Masonwu1995 (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Can you provide the conversation you had with the director? If this is really the case, Wikipedia should only update the figure when the updated report becomes available, as sources must be published. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk00:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Here is the email conversation I had with the person from GDL. Wikiepdia didn't let me upload a screenshot. "When we constructed the index for Taiwan, the spreadsheet of the Taiwanese statistics office only contained data that ran until 2015. So for the later years we had to make an estimate on the basis of restricted data. In the next update round of the SHDI we will adjust the information for Taiwan. Best wishes, Jeroen Smits" Obviously this email is not a source. But I agree with user Horse Eye Jack in that we can use the Taiwan government website as a high-quality primary source, particularly since our secondary source (GDL) says it cites that website directly. Masonwu1995 (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
According to the GDL, the HDI value for Taiwan in 2015 is 0.873, so you're saying that the director confirms that all data collected up to that point is accurate and came from the Taiwanese statistics bureau. So within 3 years, the HDI has suddenly increased 0.038, if both sources of data are the same? What kind of developmental miracle occurred between these 3 years? I just want to make sure that 0.911 is not some overinflated value, as secondary sources in these types of cases are still generally more preferred than primary. I've been to Taiwan before, and frankly speaking, it does not seem like the type of country to be more developed than South Korea. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk21:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct — the reported value was 0.873 in 2015 and 0.911 in 2018. That is certainly a big jump. My guess is that the Taiwanese government updated their method used to collect or calculate the data that goes into the calculation of the HDI value, but that's just a guess. Right now, the fact is the the primary source says 0.911, and the secondary source claims to directly cite the primary source, which is publicly viewable, yet the secondary source says 0.880, AND we have found an explanation as to why the secondary source is different, and that explanation tells us that the secondary source is wrong. I think the fact that the secondary source states clearly that it directly sources its data from the primary source means that, essentially, the secondary source has vetted the primary source for us, and we can use the primary source in this case. It's not like GDL calculated Taiwan's HDI independently. I believe at Wikipedia we should evaluate the credibility of a source but not the credibility of the data. If the primary source says 0.911, then that's what it says. Do I know that the Taiwanese government's value of 0.911 is correct? No, but we certainly aren't in a place to have an opinion on whether the HDI value is correct or not. We can only decide which source to trust, and in this case there is no reason to believe that the primary source is incorrect, whereas there IS a reason to believe the secondary source is incorrect. I am from Taiwan, and I get why you say that it doesn't seem like it's more developed than South Korea, but that's really just a superficial assessment, and not our job. Taiwan's GDP (PPP) per capita is $57,000, much higher than South Korea's $46,000 (IMF data from 2020, but you get the idea), so it's not impossible or surprising that Taiwan's HDI is slightly higher than Korea's. Sure, Taiwan's buildings look super old and there are a ton of scooters, etc. etc., but... that's a topic for another day. Masonwu1995 (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
If we're going of personal opinion based on time spent there Taiwan definitely feels more developed, especially the rural areas. I've spent time in both and while the city cores are roughly comparable (perhaps with a bit of a SK lead) the level of poverty you find in the South Korean countryside (especially among the elderly) is hard to find in Taiwan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay at this point, I do agree that the circumstances of the GDL does not seem as favorable at the data coming from the Taiwanese statistics bureau, which is a reliable primary source to use in this case and does not contain any other claims about external properties. So I agree that 0.911 should be used instead of the 0.880. Best, ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk12:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Taiwanese government website says Republic of China (Taiwan) is its official name. [1] News articles describe Republic of China as official name. In Wikipedia, should we describe the official name as Republic of China (Taiwan) or Republic of China, or both?
Republic of China. Websites are not official documents. Passport nationality field reads "Republic of China". Ythlev (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I summarize the usage of the two names mentioned in previous discussions here, feel free to add more.
Republic of China: Passport nationality field[2], English translation of the constitution articles[3]
Republic of China (Taiwan): Passport cover[4], English translation of the constitution title[5] , Resident Certificate[6], websites of some government agencies, international trade agreements[7][8]--Visaliaw (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The link for the English translation of the Constitution articles provided uses "Republic of China" sans parenthetical for every single translation. The use of (Taiwan) serves as a clarification, rather than as part of the constitutional name. CMD (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It’s OR to assert that the parenthetical isn’t used as a clarification for its one in-text mention and one in-image mention on the “About Taiwan” page. — MarkH21talk16:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOR:This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. And asserting that the parenthetical is used as a clarification is not less OR either. --Visaliaw (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
If that's genuinely your take, then I have to say I don't think you really understand the function and language of that policy. You wish to change the consensus version of a piece of content and that means the WP:ONUS is on you to prove that yours is the interpretation more consistent with the WP:WEIGHT of the sources overall, and that your position is not based on your own interpretation of the meaning and relevance of the content of primary sources (i.e. WP:original research) no matter how plain/obvious/superficial you find that interpretation to be. If you cannot provide secondary sourcing to support your position, it almost certainly does not belong in the article, particularly where you would seek to supplant a version of the content that is supported by uncountable reliableWP:secondary sources. Snowlet's rap20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
From this [10] primary source, it shows Republic of China (Taiwan) in the official name field in the chart. This source is clear and no additional interpretation is needed. This source does not mention anything about clarification, so saying that the parathensis part in this source is for clarification is original research. --Visaliaw (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:OR doesn’t apply to talk pages, but it applies to the naming that you are trying to apply to the article (which is not a talk page). It’s also silly to argue that the refutation of OR is OR. If I make up theory X, it’s not OR for you to point out that my theory isn’t directly supported by RSes. — MarkH21talk06:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Invited by the bot. Sounds like "Republic of China" is official but very confusing for the average reader. Suggest saying what the official name is but elsewhere the parenthetical clarification is fine. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Adopt the usage most prominent amongst the reliableWP:secondary sources. (Summoned by bot) In this case, that would seem to be 'Republic of China', with no parenthetical. Regardless, the outcome is the one supported by direct usage in secondary RS, not a determination made by one of our own editors (or a even a group of editors) based on their own WP:original research vis-a-vis primary documents and their interpretation thereof. Honestly, this one is kind of Wikipedia 101 and I'd urge anyone recommending their take on the meaning of a field in a passport of RS should review the relevant policies in this area and back away from that assertion as a WP:SNOW matter, because I can't imagine an outcome endorsing that view ever being validated by an RfC, making this a dubious use of community time. Snowlet's rap14:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The primary source [11] and secondary sources disagree. WP:PSTS:Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. The policy does not say secondary RS overrides primary RS.--Visaliaw (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, there is an overwhelming preference to base our content on secondary sources wherever possible, especially over our own editorial interpretations of the content of primary sources: this is a principle mentioned and expounded upon at numerous different levels of granularity and context in the very same policy WP:NOR that you linked to a subsection of above, as well as other major content policies such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and is indeed a core and overwhelmingly supported principle of community consensus on sourcing and avoiding original research that has dominated our process going back almost to the inception of the project. With very few niche exceptions, a summarization of a large volume of secondary sources is always going to take precedence over how our editors personally interpret the significance of a primary document. Without meaning to cause offense, this is about as straight-forward a sourcing call as you ever going to find on en.Wikipedia. Snowlet's rap19:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Republic of China: On the basis of RS usage, parenthetical clarification, Chinese usage, and redundancy:Historically, RSes unanimously stated that Republic of China is the official name. Recent RSes still report very clearly about Republic of China being the official name without mention of "Taiwan" in parentheses or otherwise (bolding mine):
Taiwan is a de facto independent state whose official name is the Republic of China. — Article from Foreign Policy, 8 May 2020
Taiwan -- officially the Republic of China -- has been ruled separately from the mainland since 1949 after the Nationalists lost a civil war to the Communists and fled to the island to set up a rival government. — Article from the Bangkok Post, 20 May 2020
Tsai says Taiwan is an independent state called the Republic of China, its official name, and does not want to be part of the People's Republic of China. — Article from Reuters, 20 May 2020
Tsai says Taiwan is already an independent country called the Republic of China, its official name. — Article from The Guardian, 24 May 2020
Taiwan is formally referred to as the Republic of China (ROC) — Article from The Diplomat, 29 May 2020
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued instructions on name cards that eschewed “Taiwan.” The ministry is not using the word “Taiwan” on name cards of government officials stationed overseas, sources said, citing an internal notification from the ministry sent to Taiwan’s embassies and consulate offices on Friday. — Article from the Taipei Times, 16 June 2020
Tsai says Taiwan is already an independent country called the Republic of China, its official name. — Article from Reuters, 16 June 2020
There isn’t clear evidence against the parenthetical being a clarification rather than the official name.Others have pointed out the viewpoint that the only "official name" is the Chinese name 中華民國, on the basis of official government documents (e.g. the Constitution of the Republic of China). Those four Chinese characters are generally translated into English as Republic of China by reliable sources.It would be slightly redundant and awkward to write Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (Taiwan). — MarkH21talk16:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Republic of China (Taiwan) The government website [12] is a primary reliable source, which clearly states the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan). Since the parenthetical is in the official name field in the chart, it is clear that the parenthetical here is part of the official name rather than a clarification.
Now the primary RS and secondary RS (news articles) disagree. WP:PSTS:Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.
The official name is by definition decided by the government, so the government website is a more reliable source of the official name than news articles on this issue.
Also, take MarkH21's sources above as example, four of the seven news sentences are inaccurate. (No. 3,4,7):Tsai's interview video is here [13]. From 1m30s, it is clear that Tsai said the word Taiwan after Republic of China, which the news reporters omitted, showing that those news articles are not reliable when it comes to distinguishing between "Republic of China" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)". (No. 6) is denied by the government[14], and the government spokesperson said 'Republic of China (Taiwan)' is being used on all official documents at MOFA foreign offices in the countries with which Taiwan has diplomatic relations.
If the community consensus does not support the primary RS here could override secondary RS, the view of the Taiwanese government that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is official name should still be presented, as the government's view on its own official name is significant. WP:NPOV:neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. So in this case we should mention both names.--Visaliaw (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC); updated 06:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The article you linked regarding the Focus Taiwan article on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and name cards affirms that the issued template
highlights Taiwan's formal name [...] Taiwan's formal title, Republic of China, has been a sensitive issue [...] — Aforementioned article from Focus Taiwan, 16 June 2020
Sure, and the news reporter's written sentence disagree with what the MOFA spokesperson actually said in the press conference. The video is here[15], if you could understand Chinese, in 7m13s the spokesperson said Republic of China (Taiwan) is the formal name.--Visaliaw (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The news article wasn’t quoting anybody where it is written: Taiwan's formal title, Republic of China, has been a sensitive issue domestically and internationally due to the complexity of cross-Taiwan Strait relations..It’s also not like the article hasn’t said In some contexts, especially ROC government publications, the name is written as "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China/Taiwan", or sometimes "Taiwan (ROC)" for five years as Chipmunkdavis pointed out below. — MarkH21talk06:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Republic of China bot invitation Seems the overwhelming preponderance of secondary and tertiary RS refer to RoC. Whether or not a representative says they are chair of the Judean People's Front or the People's Front of Judea, if the Carthage Times, the Roma Gazette and the Constantinople Clarion have for the last 20 odd years referred to them as the Naughty Boys, well...apologies to Monty Python --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Include both and explain the situation. Admittedly most reliable sources describe the official name as "Republic of China", but the government is by default the the most reliable source on its own name. The definition of "official" involves having approval from a government or other authoritative body. What secondary sources describe the name as doesn't actually matter as much as what the government deems its own name to be. We should include both and explain that while most sources consider the official English name to be the "Republic of China", the Taiwanese government says "Republic of China (Taiwan)". We also shouldn't forget that the name is central to a political dispute between the ROC and the PRC; being as the mainland government believes in a One-China policy where they want the island of Taiwan to be considered a part of China while the government that's introduced the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" name wants to distinguish itself. We shouldn't endorse a specific point of view by only including one name. Chess(talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts here: First off, I think that the suggestion explaining the nature of the debate in some form within the article itself, as suggested by yourself and North8000 above,may be a reasonable compromise/work-around here. But I suspect for the parties who were originally debating the content here, the devil will be in the details: for example, I don't see a lot of support for "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in the initial lead sentence (if in the lead at all) amongst the perspectives lodged above. So if we are going to move in that direction, it might be useful to discuss precise language to try to get everyone on the same page. Second, while you are correct that there is nominative political element to this topic, I don't it aligns in quite the fashion you describe: historically the phrase "The Republic of China" was exactly how the people of Taiwan distinguished themselves from the "The people's Republic of China, and signaled their sense of historical, political, and cultural continuity with the earlier and more expansive iteration of the ROC under the Kuomintang.
Tawain is actually originally a colonial ethnonym that passed into common usage for the island as a whole and became in particular the preferred term of reference in a global sense and among foreigners (after the earlier 'Formosa' serving a similar role). This current discussion is actually the first time I have ever heard someone suggest that it might be important to add the Tawain in parenthesis to sufficiently express the formal name of the country: again, historically, 'Republic of China' itself was considered a differential statement for purposes of distinguishing the region from the rest of China under the One Country, Two Systems principle. It could very well be that the extra level of distinction of adding the parenthetical afterwards to provide even more conceptual distance is a development amongst those who favour very strong autonomy for the island (which is to say, a good portion of the Tawainese). That is certainly the sense that I get about what is motivating Visaliaw's perspective. Which is not an outlook I care to belittle or minimize: if that's the trend, it probably deserves some discussion here.
But where I part ways with his perspective (and to some degree yours) is with regard to what standard of proof policy requires of us as to what the "official" name of the island/administrative region/country/whatever actually is: yes of course the government itself is a major player in what that WP:COMMONNAME is deemed to be--it goes without saying. But that doesn't mean that sourcing standards go out the window: one still needs reliable, independent sources in order to establish what name the government itself prefers and it is still very much WP:Original research/WP:synthesis to say "Well, I've looked at documents X, Y, and Z and determined that the name is [whatever]". That is where Visaliaw's push falters and (with genuine respect to the rest of your argument and support for your suggestion we discuss this issue in the article at length) I'd say that where your position is in error as a policy matter as well. He can't just supplant his personal preference/interpretation based on his reading of those primary documents against a mountain of reliable secondary sources, especially for purposes of the lead sentence. If "Republic of China (Tawain)" is really the "official" name of the country, it should be exceedingly trivial to produce numerous high quality secondary sources that support that claim.
Otherwise I am inclined to say our policies argue for our treating this development as something akin to a WP:neologism. Now even if that's the case, there's a strong argument to be made for laying all of this out explicitly in the article, just to clear up any potential confusion for our readers. But a stronger standard is demanded for reworking the lead sentence or the lead generally. If this is a clear new trend (or an older one I am merely oblivious to, for that matter) in how the Taiwanese people and/or their government prefer to identify themselves, then by all means, let us make this perfectly clear. But the mere assertion and some hand-waving at some personal documents do not obviate Visaliaw from providing sufficient sourcing, as the proponent of this change, particularly if they want to do a radical re-write of the primary terminology employed in the article. All of that said, let's see if we cant find language that both sides of the original dispute here can get behind, consistent with your suggestion. Snowlet's rap21:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The link provided in the RFC question is a reliable primary source that shows Republic of China (Taiwan) in the official name field. It does not require any additional interpretion from me. As for independent sources, "'Republic of China (Taiwan)' is being used on all official documents at MOFA foreign offices in the countries with which Taiwan has diplomatic relations and in some others,"[16] --Visaliaw (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
That’s just another example of an article that says that ROC is the official name: Taiwan's formal title, Republic of China, has been a sensitive issue [...] — MarkH21talk06:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The sentence I quoted are words from the spokesperson, and it is a reliable, independent source in order to establish what name the government itself prefers as Snow Rise requested. The video of the press conference is here[17], if you could understand Chinese, in 7m13s the spokesperson said Republic of China (Taiwan) is the formal name. The sentence MarkH21 cited is written by the news reporter himself without providing any source, and it disagrees with the government spokesperson. The government spokesperson is an expert on the official name issue, and her words are more reliable than the news reporter's belief.--Visaliaw (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The Executive Yuan does not unequivocally represent the state. It was against decriminalising adultery, but the court ruled it unconstitutional. Can we still say "Taiwan supports criminalising adultery"? Ythlev (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
We could say "Taiwan supported criminalising adultery". The executive yuan is not against decriminalising adultery any more.[18]--Visaliaw (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The executive yuan still released the 5 prisoners. This is getting off topic. The court did not rule about the official name so this is an inappropriate analogy.--Visaliaw (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not off topic. The point is that the Executive Yuan is only one branch of government. It can have its own political positions, but it does not fully represent the state. If the next president is KMT and removes the page you keep citing, would the official name have changed? The official name is still defined by the constitution which although only in Chinese, its literal translation and what's printed on the passport, unchanged between administrations, is "Republic of China". Ythlev (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
So the official name can change every four years? Heck if the president decides to use a different name every week, the official name changes every week?Taiwan is a constitutional state based on rule of law. Ythlev (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The constitution is in Chinese and it does not specify the English official name, so it is up to the government to decide. Neither is Republic of China a literal translation of the consitutional name 中華民國, there is a subtle difference between Chunghua and China. A majority of Taiwanese people would agree their country is 中華民國 and their country is not China. It is reasonable in Chinese but is ridiculous if you translate 中華民國 into Republic of China.--Visaliaw (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
there is a subtle difference between Chunghua and China. Which is what? It is reasonable in Chinese but is ridiculous if you translate 中華民國 into Republic of China Maybe not literally (words mean what we say they mean but whatever), there is plenty of evidence that it translates to Republic of China, such as this document,[19] or its seat in the UN.[20] It is the only universal name. Ythlev (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Chunghua (Zhonghua) and China is the same. Zhonghua Minguo is Republic of China, Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo is People's Republic of China. It's a perfect analogy. I think you are confusing the difference between Zhonghua en Zhongguo; technically synonyms (meaning "China"), but Zhonghua has a connotation of China as a culture and Zhongguo has a connotation of the China as a country. De wafelenbak (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@De wafelenbak: The difference is Chunghua(中華) could mean Chinese in the either cultural, ethnic, or political sense, so the country is not necessarily China, while (Republic of) China means Chinese clearly in the political sense. The difference is exemplified above.--Visaliaw (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Include both or just Republic of China (Taiwan) I agree with many of Chess’s points. I also want to add that this was very very recently a matter of dispute within Taiwan and according to the Taipei Times the Spokeswoman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said ""The nation’s formal documents for other countries — those with formal ties and some without — used “Republic of China (Taiwan)” as the nation’s name, she said.”[21] Given that the whole “official” thing is arbitrary and up to the country I think we should either use both and note the dispute or just their current preferred English styling. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the extra context here Jack--that is very helpful to confirm that this a recent widespread debate, and it certainly adds yet more impetus to add content to the article which describes the current multiplicity of terminology. That source also addresses the need for secondary citation to support the parenthetical name, a good first step in bridging the gap between the two positions. Snowlet's rap23:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It should be noted that the debate in Taiwan this time around was between those who preferred Republic of China (Taiwan) as the name and those who preferred just Taiwan... Nobody was really arguing for Republic of China although that constituency does exist. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's interesting--it would seem there are two different debates that are both parallel and overlapping: if I am reading that source correctly, the local government has largely charted a conservative course when it comes to the terminology, preferring the traditional 'Republic of China' over 'Republic of China (Taiwan)', which some have begun adding to their documents, regardless. But it is also clear that there is no real consensus in the government about which of the two is most appropriate, which is more or less what you would expect given the divided perspectives within it generally. At the same time, in the popular sphere, the debate is to the side of that one, with the two options being debated being, as you noted, the 'Republic of China (Taiwan)' and simply Taiwan. So if I read this all correctly and work it into past historical context as I understand it for the province/nation, there is a continuum, that looks basically like this:
[Terms preferred by those who favour increased political union with China] 'Peoples Republic of China' (PRC) <----> 'Republic of China' (ROC) <----> 'Republic of China (Taiwan)' <----> 'Taiwan' [Terms preferred by those favouring increased political autonomy for the region].
...and at any given point and in any particular social context of recent time, the debate between any two people or groups of people might have been between any two of those four terms (with 'Peoples Republic of China'/'PRC' probably still being unpalatable to a majority of Taiwanese, and thus the largest outlier, but still in play with those who think of themselves as culturally Chinese first and foremost (this group not being the majority, but not being an altogether tiny segment of the local population either). Would you say that is more or less an accurate summary of the situation and how the various terms align politically, as you understand it? This would require a fair bit of care to accurately impart to the reader, but I think it should be entirely doable at the same time, with enough massaging of the text--and probably we can get the article to a state where everybody is vaguely satisfied (though probably not altogether thrilled) with how the competing titles are described. Snowlet's rap00:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
There is also the third traditional perspective that is largely unpopular nowadays, but has not been 100% dismissed by the government, that they are the ROC because they still lay claim to all of Mainland China (and therefore do not necessarily seek closer relations with the PRC but also do not accept being solely Taiwan).Amongst all of the names though, ROC is by far the most common RS-attributed official name, even among recent sources in the midst of the new ROC (Taiwan) movement. — MarkH21talk01:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Taking all of the evidence together, I'm inclined to say that the lead sentence should continue to use 'Republic of China (ROC)' in the lead sentences--since we have to pick the most standard and ubiquitous term for the opening of the article, which cannot start with a wordy discussion involving four name variants before we have even established the subject matter of the article--but that, at the same time, the article needs to do much, much more to discuss the variant names and the various political and cultural implications of those preferences. Whether that takes place later in the lead section or in its own expressly titled section early in the article, I think we ought to discuss. I do think the topic needs to be fairly prominent fairly early on though, so as not to confuse the many different readers who may come here with different notions of what the name and status of the country/region is. Snowlet's rap03:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Given that you completely misinterpreted the “evidence” (literally 360 degrees, you got it backwards) maybe you should re-evaluate your position... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Lol you’re right! Thats what I get for editing before coffee haha. I do think they’ve completely misinterpreted the source, although how that happened is a little confusing because the source isn't ambiguous. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I can see how it can be confusing, since the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued templates without Taiwan on them. But yes, the current government generally prefers the parenthetical over the traditional nomenclature, in contrast to earlier governments. — MarkH21talk16:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
"if I am reading that source correctly, the local government has largely charted a conservative course when it comes to the terminology, preferring the traditional 'Republic of China' over 'Republic of China (Taiwan)’” Yeah you read that wrong, the current government prefers Republic of China (Taiwan) and uses that on documents, not the other way around. There is clear consensus within the government, you clearly misunderstand. You got it backwards, does that change your conclusions at all? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid not, because it's still a rather minor point in the overall analysis, and it would still be WP:OR for us to use primary documents to force a major change on the article that is contrary to the WP:WEIGHT provided by numerous secondary sources. Besides, even aside from the argument being OR, I'm not sure it's even a good, rational argument. Here's what the source you provided says about the matter: The nation’s formal documents for other countries — those with formal ties and some without — used “Republic of China (Taiwan)” as the nation’s name, she said. (emphasis added) The nation's formal documents "for other countries": the reasoning behind adding the parenthetical here seems to be to make sure that diplomatic credentials, and other documents which the agents and officials of other countries come into contact with are not mistaken as being for the "other" Republic of China, the PRC. Which is entirely reasonable but not in itself proof that the nation has officially adopted the whole form as its name--most other internal government documents and official uses of the country's name continue to be simply "Republic of China", insofar as I can deduce. Even were that not the case, we would still need the WP:WEIGHT of the sources to shift to discussing any new standard in the nation's name; WP:OR does not just fly out the window as a policy because "we are really really sure we're right!" I'll repeat what I said above: if "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is really the current name of the nation/territory, it should be exceedingly easy to find numerous high quality secondary sources saying as much expressly and directly. Not sources with little tidbits we can WP:SYNTH together into the conclusion that this is the name: actual statements that this is the name, in enough volume to shift the analysis of the WP:WEIGHT of the sources overall.
All of that said, I want to be clear that I still strongly support discuss all of the various competing names in the article, at whatever length is necessary to clarify what those names are, who the stakeholders are that support them, and why the multiplicity exists. If it's causing confusion amongst editors who are not wholly unfamiliar with the relevant historical and political dimensions, it bears extra work to clarify for the average reader coming here to understand Taiwan as a topic, maybe for the first time. But we can't start the article with that discussion: it would be unwieldy and confusing for the reader. So insofar as we limit the name in that context, it's pretty clear what the balance of the sources use when they describe the nation's official name 'Republic of China'. And I don't really see how that's a problem, insofar as the actual title of the article is Taiwan, and will thus also be in that first sentence, no matter how we format it. Now, if you're looking for support on getting more than the one sentence that currently describes the overlapping names in the article, I'm with you. But if you want me to support a change everytime we use the nation's official name, I can't support that yet, as the evidentiary burden/weight analysis under Wikipedia's policies has quite clearly not been met, or even begun to be met. Snowlet's rap22:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Some of the primary sources directly support that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is the official name. Those primary sources are also reliable, published sources, so you cannot say that it is WP:OR only because it is based on primary sources. Also, when primary sources and secondary sources disagree, you could not completely disregard the primary sources without further justification, especially when some of the secondary sources has been demonstrated that they are not faithfully reporting the event. And your deduction is wrong, "most other internal government documents and official uses of the country's name continue to be simply Republic of China".This is not true. --Visaliaw (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Precisely why the argument you are forwarding is WP:OR has been explained at least six times by almost as many editors above, including myself twice, but I'm going to give this one more try. You keep insisting (frankly with a lot hand waving) that what you would be doing involves no interpretation of the source. But I'm sorry, that's just not true. You would be taking a primary document and deducing from the fact that it uses one particular way of referring to the country to mean that this is the "One, WP:TRUE name", despite a mountain of reliable secondary sources that say otherwise. I'm sorry, but that is just not how WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT/reliable sourcing work on this project. I'm sure it seems like the most natural, rational thing to you, but we have a different process, and being unwilling to quadruple the length of this post to explain all of the pragmatic editorial reasons why we do things in this way, I will instead summarize by saying this community feels that it makes content more reliable and neutral in the aggregate and prevents and endless cycle of bickering between people advocating for their own take on the meaning and significance of primary sources and what they mean.
Now, you keep insisting that primary sources have equal footing with secondary sources here, despite having been directed to numerous of our core policies that demonstrate that this is patently false. And even were it true, you're still fighting the sheer volume of secondary RS, from actual expert sources who are qualified under our policies to provide interpretations of primary sources; you, as an editor, are not allowed to insert your own opinion/deductions into the article in Wikipedia's voice. But don't feel slighted--that's true of any one of us. I understand how these concepts can feel counter-intuitive, when one is a new editor and sees something that feels fairly "obvious" to them but which they cannot as yet adequately source. But we have a maxim here: "verifiability, not truth". Our OR and SYNTH policies are meant to make this project both manageable and less prone to systemic biases by forbidding us from extrapolating our own conclusions from the sources--and it's not just that we need that breaking mechanism even when we are talking about something that seems obvious to us, but rather especially then. Snowlet's rap11:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
All of that said, I want to make some suggestions that might feel more constructive, even from your perspective. The RfC prompt does not truly identify what objectives you seek to have endorsed here, except perhaps to give a vague sense that you want all instances of one usage replaced with your preferred version. I think despite sticking to your guns rhetorically here, you must realize you are not gaining the support you need for your change; it is likely that this discussion will end with a consensus against your stance or at best a "no consensus" close, which is in practical terms the same thing, since the status quo version will be retained. So let's try to sharpen the talk about what changes would look like that might make the editors here, yourself hopefully included, broadly satisfied. I would argue that based on feedback so far, it is a non-starter to expect your preferred term to replace throughout the article or even in the lead sentence. However, I would like to suggest that regardless of whether you can eventually sway enough people over to that perspective, a starting place we might be able to get support for very quickly is the introduction of a new separate section which discusses the exact subject matter of this RfC: we can surely do better than a single sentence to describe the multiplicity of uses and (to the extent possible with secondary source support) the origins and implications of the variants. I believe this would be fairly useful to the reader, regardless of how the rest of this goes. Should we perhaps start there? Snowlet's rap11:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you think it is WP:OR. The chart in this source shows Republic of China (Taiwan) in the official name field. [22] I think this chart directly supports a/the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan). Do you disagree that this source directly supports a/the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)? Or are you saying that me choosing this source over secondary sources is WP:OR because my reasoning is my own deduction? If it is the second one, evaluating conflicting sources to determine which is more reliable is not original research, see Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources.
About primary sources, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD:"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher .Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources., along with the WP:PSTS shown above, suggests that the reliability of primary sources and secondary sources should be compared and discussed.
As for the alternative suggestion, I could agree avoid specifying the official name in the first sentence and discuss the matter in a new separate section.--Visaliaw (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
As for the alternative suggestion, I could agree avoid specifying the official name in the first sentence and discuss the matter in a new separate section.
Awesome, I am glad to hear that! For my part, I find it sometimes useful to start with the improvements that can be agreed upon and then work backwards towards the loggerheads of the content dispute: sometimes some of that problem can be ameliorated through work on the peripheral issues. I apologize for taking so long to respond here: it's been one of those weeks for me, I'm afraid!
Now, since I am not one of the original parties to the dispute, my initial inclination is to leave it to one of you who has been involved here longer to draft the first version of any additional text that might be added to the article (outside the lead) for the purpose of going into some extra detail about the variant names, their historic origins, and their contemporary meaning and significance to the various stake-holders. However, as I am also the person who suggested this is as the first step to resolving the deadlock, I am also perfectly willing to do some legwork to suggest an initial draft of such language, if you and the other involved parties would find that useful. Just let me know what your preference is, regarding suggesting the initial wording yourself or having someone else do it. Either way, I suggest we create a subsection of this thread to discuss this side-issue (which inter-relates with the RfC prompt but which is not a full answer to the question, in itself, no matter how well we word it). Snowlet's rap22:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment The framing for this RfC is poor, falling foul of WP:RFCBRIEF. This is not a dispute between news articles and the Government. The actual constitution, as provided above, uses the name "Republic of China", as do numerous other sources, so the "news articles" framing is deeply misleading. Much of the rest of the discussion is based on various interpretations of WP:PRIMARY sources, which is inappropriate for such a topic. As for the include both comments, "Republic of China (Taiwan)" has already been included in this article for years, and no-one has suggested removing it. CMD (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t even realize that the RfC wasn’t worded specifically for the first sentence of the lead. CMD is 100% correct that the article has contained the sentence
In some contexts, especially ROC government publications, the name is written as "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China/Taiwan", or sometimes "Taiwan (ROC)".
To be fair, the cited sources don't directly support the claim of increasingly uses regarding in recent years, but that's a separate issue from this RfC. Open a separate talk section if you want to discuss that. — MarkH21talk18:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
That's true - but it's still a rather petty deletion that subtracts rather than adds to the clarity of our exposition of our exposition for the typical reader...--BushelCandle (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Republic of China (Taiwan): I think we do our readers a disservice if we don't keep up to date.
In the absence of an institution like the Académie Française, the English language has a tendency to change and evolve more rapidly than other world languages, but Wikipedia should try and clarify both current and historical name useages.
(Personally, I was a bit perturbed when, at the whim of its ruling monarch, we changed almost overnight from using Swaziland to Eswatini. Using an opposite example, the Czech Republic is perhaps overdue for a change to the preferred nomenclature of its government: Czechia.)
The Taiwanese constitution was written a long time ago when Taiwanese politicians were more concerned about maintaining their Quixotic claims to be the true inheritors of Chinese imperial ambitions. It's probable that, if the current legislators were not constantly threatened with immediate invasion by their neighbouring great power if they dared to change their stance and official name of their country too drastically (to reflect the current reality), the official name of this modern democracy would have been changed a long time ago. --BushelCandle (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
If that's true and that's what this discussion is about, then I don't know what we're still arguing about.
(I was trying to point out the political context in which the current government of Taiwan [elected in, what in the Taiwanese context is, a landslide result] has not chosen the snappier Taiwan Republic or just Taiwan as the official name of the democracy they govern. If this RfC is about what the official name really is in English, then the primary sources above establish indubitably what the current official name is: Republic of China (Taiwan)
The whole idea of "official" denotes that it is the current government that decides the official name and not some sloppy journalist or out-dated historian or imprecise translator. --BushelCandle (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The passport nationality field reads "Republic of China", and it is not by a journalist, historian, or translator. Ythlev (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I would have thought that the passport issuing authority is more concerned with the widest possible acceptance of their passport rather than arbitrating what the official name of their country is.
In any case, what is written in the passport nationality field of any passport is very poor evidence of what the official name of the country that issued it is. If my passport says that I'm "Australian", that doesn't necessarily mean that the official name of the country that issued it is no longer the Commonwealth of Australia. --BushelCandle (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Obviously what the field reads is not exactly what the official name is. Australia's is not "Australian". It is an indication. It also shows that the question is not "indubitable". Ythlev (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Republic of China per analogy with People's Republic of China and because Taiwan isn't mentioned in the Chinese name. Unless the Taiwan government would give a legally binding regulation on the matter, we should stick with Republic of China. De wafelenbak (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Within the article, there is certainly room for both of these names and the controversy concerning which one is official. However, if we're just talking about the opening paragraphs, we should just use Republic of China as the most common official name. Jediting1 (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Republic of China - We already know what the common name is; adding the common name again in parentheses beside the official name is redundant and awkward to read, especially in the lead paragraph. The primary function of placing something in parentheses is to provide clarification, what are we clarifying with "Taiwan, officially known as Republic of China (Taiwan), is a country in East Asia"? --benlisquareT•C•E08:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Your reasoning assumes the official name is Republic of China and the parathensis is only for clarification and not part of the official name. However, this government published source [24] is saying Republic of China (Taiwan) is the official name. This source is already titled 'About Taiwan' and 'Taiwan Snapshot', if the parathenses here is only for clarification, what is it clarifying?
Also I don't think redundency is a good argument. If an official name makes the sentence redundent, we should still describe the name at it is, maybe changing the sentence/paragraph structure to avoid redundency. We shouldn't use redundency as a reason to decide which is the official name or reduce the due weight of that name, this is putting the cart before the horse. --Visaliaw (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Depends on the phrasing - the official English name is indeed Republic of China (Taiwan), because too much is lost in translation. Therefore, it shouldn’t say otherwise. However, from an aesthetic point of view, Republic of China probably is preferable in the first sentence. Maybe include the Chinese term in brackets, or invoke the literally translated official term in Chinese. And include a link to the relevant section below to read on for the pedants. Just don’t simply say it’s the official name. It’s not. Analogy may be the names of the state of Israel in English, Hebrew and Arabic. Medinat meant different things in different languages in different places in different times. EnTerbury (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I wonder, even if it were ever so slightly redundant on what is said later in the article, if we might be able to accommodate a footnote here very compactly and concisely describing the variance in names here. I mean, arguably that is really the one thing footnotes are good for: discussing a highly pedantic subtopic that is nevertheless potentially meaningful to a neutral treatment of the subject at hand. Perhaps that is some middle ground territory that could be agreed to here? Snowlet's rap12:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Throughout the course of this RfC, no secondary sources have been presented describing this particular variance in names. A neutral treatment requires WP:WEIGHT to be taken into account, and so far there just isn't much to account for. I actually wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some source out there discussing the issue, but the fact it's so difficult to find is an indication towards the lack of weight this viewpoint holds. CMD (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The definition of "official" involves agreed by the government or authority. If we only describe the official name as only Republic of China in the first sentence, we will mislead readers to believe that this name is the government's viewpoint. The primary reliable sources showing the government viewpoint is important and should be given sufficient weight to let readers understand the government's viewpoint.--Visaliaw (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
We have no sources that describe the government's viewpoint. All arguments made here in that regard have been editorial interpretations of very undetailed primary sources. CMD (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The primary sources publish by the government directly supports the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)[25]. I am not sure why you are still saying there are no sources after this source has been presented so many times in the discussion. We shouldn't treat these as viewpoints either. When the government says the government approved name is X, and news reporters says the government approved name is Y. What the government saying is the fact instead of a viewpoint, and the news reporters are simply wrong.--Visaliaw (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
That primary source is literally a single entry in a very simple table. It doesn't say "This government views the official name of this country to be 'The Republic of China (Taiwan)'". It doesn't say "This government changed the official name to be 'The Republic of China (Taiwan)'", or "This government considers '(Taiwan)' to be a full part of the official name", or anything like that. It's just a single table entry, without elaboration or explanation or any context at all. (A table that lists "multiparty democracy" as "government" to boot.) It's weak even for a Primary Source. CMD (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Its official name is just Republic of China, defined in mentioned through out its constitution and abbreviated as R.O.C. The parenthesis phrasing never is official. --Matt Smith (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The constitution is in Chinese. The constitution or law does not specify the English official name or mention any English name.--Visaliaw (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Republic of China "Official" does not mean commonly called, it means in law. Unofficial use does not make something official. TFD (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Laughs in Bunun. We got ourselves into this mess because of the original Republic of China (polity) vs Taiwan (geography/country) merger, and is forced to make a one-liner decision in the first line of the current "Taiwan" article because of that. But as for the proposals as they currently stand, Republic of China (Taiwan) seems appropriate as it is how Taiwanese official communications (notably Tsai Ing-wen's re-election victory statement) handled it. Deryck C.17:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Republic of China I assume that Ythlev mentioned helpful point, as said: "Websites are not official documents. Passport nationality field reads "Republic of China". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Republic of China (Taiwan): If the government in question uses that name, that's its official name. This is less a judgment issue as a semantic one, and the semantics of official means that provided officially by the nation in question. If they use "Republic of China (Taiwan)", we should too. PickleG13 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Adding four secondary sources for Republic of China (Taiwan)
-"Taiwan declared itself ... under the official name of Republic of China (Taiwan)" [27]
-"Most countries around the world do not allow the use of the official name Republic of China (Taiwan)"[28]
-"Taiwan is a full member under its official name, the Republic of China (Taiwan) "[29]
-"The name...will be used...after a first reference to the nation by its formal name, the Republic of China (Taiwan) in the first paragraph."[30]
--Visaliaw (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@223.140.226.140: The arguments in favor of using the name that reliable sources describe as official far outweighed arguments in favor of using the name used by the Taiwanese government website, or using both versions of the name. Arguments that the constitution refers to ROC also contributed to consensus. - MrX 🖋17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
This article should be split
Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion
Hello, I personally think that we should split this article into two separate articles being Taiwan (island) and Taiwan (The Republic of China). These two entities are very different and lumping them both into one article is pretty dumb.SirFlemeingtonz (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Note though that as many editors have pointed out, the "Taiwan Area" controlled by the government of the Republic of China contains more than Taiwan Island. Maybe we could call the two articles simply Taiwan and Republic of China. For the government section of Taiwan Area, we could say it is administered by the Republic of China. TFD (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Well it doesn’t really talk about Taiwan’s history or people or many other things needed for a good article on a place. And plus that still doesn’t excuse how this article lumps Taiwan and the ROC together. SirFlemeingtonz (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
SirFlemeingtonz, I think the geography of Taiwan article is pretty much the article that you are proposing. While it doesn't cover history, which is covered on History of Taiwan it does cover the people living on the island. And as the island and the country have pretty much the same territory, of course there is overlap when discussing the history and geography of the island in this article, but I don't think that the article lumps them together. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to moving this article per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. For the last seventy years the RoC has been the only government of Taiwan and Taiwan has been 99% of the territory of the RoC. Disentangling them would be impossible. A separate Taiwan (island) article along the lines of Great Britain seems reasonable though. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Khajidha The difference is that "Cuba" is both the name of the island and the is contained within the official name of the country – Republic of Cuba. Taiwan is the name of an island and a province. The official name of the country is the Republic of China. This is a case distinct from Jamaica, Iceland and Sri Lanka. For the same reason "Britain", while commonly used to refer to the United Kingdom, is not accurate.
Andro611 (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. Common names that do not match official names are not inaccurate, they're just common names. --Khajidha (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The lead section should be changed to something like this: Taiwan is a province of the PRC, although it is politically independent, the political status of Taiwan is unclear.
The reason is that the PRC constitution states that Taiwan is not sovereign, and the map on China states that Taiwan is Chinese territory but the Chinese government has nearly no control.
Those who insult me because of my perspective please see WP:NPA.
-- PythonSwarmTalk | Contribs | Global01:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: Virtually no reliable sources describe Taiwan first and foremost as a province of the PRC. RSes indisputably mention that the PRC's position is that Taiwan is a province of the PRC, but it's a not a position for WP:WIKIVOICE. RSes describe Taiwan as a de facto sovereign state or country in their own voice far more than they describe it as a province of the PRC in their own voice. — MarkH21talk01:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, for same reasons as above. This is about independent Taiwan and its government. The article can address the dispute with PRC.Parkwells (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose – The PRC has never had effective sovereignty over Taiwan, only claimed sovereignty, so this is entirely facetious. When PRC tanks roll into Taiwan, maybe then it should be labelled a "province of the PRC". For now, Taiwan is and has always been an independent country from the PRC, whether you refer to it as "Taiwan" or the "Republic of China". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose – It is just out of the question. A so-called "territory of the PRC" which has never controlled over it... LOL
Deciding on whether to implement something like that is based on whether there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In this case, the ROC Taiwan is overwhelmingly the primary topic by RS usage. — MarkH21talk23:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
There are many Chinese-language sources (some, not all, of which are WP:RS) which mention the fact that Taiwan is claimed (but not governed) by the mainland. Félix An (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
There are many English language sources that mention that too, but that's not the point. When reliable sources just say "Taiwan" in general usage, they overwhelmingly mean the ROC Taiwan and not the PRC claim. Just as many reliable sources mention that mainland China was claimed by the ROC after the Chinese Civil War but the primary topic for "China" is the PRC.— MarkH21talk00:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - For the same reason the sentence mainland China belongs to the Republic of China, but is currently controlled by the People's Republic of China is not featured in the China article. If you're going to include PRC claims, you may as well state the same thing from the ROC constitutional point of view.--Tærkast (Discuss) 19:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose no reliable sources were provided to support this claim and the great majority of the independent sources I've seen states otherwise. ɴᴋᴏɴ21❯❯❯talk02:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. More or less in the same terms MarkH21 sets out above: this is a straightforward WP:WEIGHT issue. Of course we should (and do) discuss the nuances and historical idiosyncrasies that define the contours of Taiwan's disputed status, even in the lead itself. But stating in Wikipedia's voice that Taiwan is a "province" of the PRC (which incidentally, is not exactly how I think even pro-PRC sources on the issue frame the particulars, insofar as the province distinction goes), would clearly be inconsistent with the weight of the relevant reliable sources, in general. Snowlet's rap07:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Taiwan being a province of the PRC is from the point of view of the PRC, which is political and not WP:NPOV. Furthermore, being claimed as a province is different from actually being a province, which is reflected in the map on the article China that you mention: the map states that Taiwan is claimed territory, not that it is actual Chinese territory. This is a distinction that the proposed edit would neglect, as the proposal instead takes a firm stance on one side. For all practical intents and purposes and by reputable sources, Taiwan is generally regarded as a country. ChromeGames923 (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
In determining the English language name of this state, we need to rely on what the organs of government of this state are saying the state is called-I plan to make a running list of different variants here.
No, we don't "need to rely" on this, we use WP:COMMONNAME. The official English name of Ivory Coast, for example, is "Republic of Côte d'Ivoire", but Wikipedia has decided to go with "Ivory Coast" instead (I don't think that was the right decision, but it is a useful example). —Kusma (t·c) 14:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree we should use COMMONNAME. In any case, Taiwan is not a state but a province administered by the Republic of China and claimed by the People's Republic of China, both of which call it Taiwan Province. TFD (talk)
The most common meaning of "Taiwan" these days is "the Republic of China" as in "Tsai Ing-wen is the President of Taiwan". The second most common meaning is geographically, the island of Taiwan. The use of "Taiwan" for the province of either ROC or PRC (i.e. including Penghu but excluding Kinmen) is vanishingly rare. —Kusma (t·c) 08:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't it have the same no staff, no budget, no responsibility status as the Fujian Provincial Government and the other weird KMT holdovers? TFD’s point is still off, even if we want to say on an extreme technicality that it exists its never been contagious with Taiwan... Taiwan Province is at most 2/3 of Taiwan. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
That belongs to a different topic. The point here is that the so called Taiwan province still exists in the ROC's administrative specification. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
We should add Republic of China (Taiwan) to the first paragraph as MOS:ALTNAME suggests. Republic of China (Taiwan) is a significant alternative name form. This name form does not appear anywhere in the article. Fueun (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
There's a lot of white space with no text to scroll through due to the number of pictures along the right side of the article. Can some of the pictures be moved into a gallery format to help cut down on that? Psu256 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There are a few excessive images, e.g. in the Military section, but the real problem is more the three overloaded infoboxes at the start of the article, which push the illustrations for the early sections into a huge stack. Kanguole18:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes the images are somewhat excessive, but another problem of whitespace is the overwhelming pile of images on the right side. I have moved some to the left to help with the logjam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
As I say, the real cause of the logjam is the excessive infoboxes. Also, when you move an image near the end of a section to the left, that can bump the next section heading to the right, which looks awful. Kanguole20:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It can do that regardless of whether it's near the end or not. But there's no way for me to tell since everyone has a different window size to view the page. There were (and still are) too many pics on the right side. It looked perfect from my end. But yes... that first infobox is long, but I think shorter than the United Kingdom infobox. But then we have two more ridiculous infoboxes that really interfere with photos. Strange, I tried adding the "collapse" attribute to the two extra infoboxes, but it doesn't seem to work for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the name boxes:
There is no need for images of the characters, when we have the characters as text just below.
The Tibetan, Zhuang, Mongolian, Uyghur and Manchu versions of "Republic of China" are out of place here. Deleting them would not be a loss of information, as they are duplicated in Republic of China (1912–1949), where they make more sense.
Gallery formats are deprecated since they don't honour user's preferences for image size. WP:IMGDD states "Don't set fixed image sizes". They're also a bad idea because they tend to move apposite images away from relevant text.
Kanguole has correctly identified that, as with many Wikipedia articles, the excessive length of the right aligned infoboxes pushes images too far down the page and away from the text they relate too. This is most acute where the leading text is short but, even with long ledes like in this article it can remain a problem.
Moving images to be left aligned is no real solution since, depending on screen width and enlargement, text can then end up in a thin worm, sandwiched between a left aligned image and either the extended infobox or, heaven forbid, an opposite, right aligned images.
Folks need to realise that it is inherent to the way that W3C standards work that there will be thousands of versions to the way that articles visually display since there are very many permutations of browser and screen widths.
I'd also point out that many specialists think it best that humans don't face away (rather than into) body text.
Losing cruft and collapsing boxes by default (well done, Fyunck(click) for attempting this,) may be the way forward, but it will be a constant battle - drive-by editors just love adding (and arguing about) crud (they would say pearls of information) to infoboxes and the fact that the code is always towards the top of the first things they see, assists in the inexorable growth.--BushelCandle (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the Japanese from the Taiwan language infobox, and the China section of the Republic of China infobox, as both are quite minor in usage these days. CMD (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Sandwiching
I'm afraid I take issue with this edit and the edit summary that accompanied it of "Everything piled on one side make the article look a bit amateurish." Consequently, unless someone can advance policy-compliant reasons for why it should be endured, I intend to negate it.
There are good reasons why MOS:IMAGELOCATION advises Most images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement:
1) It is really highly subjective and a matter of personal preference as to whether articles look better with most images consistently on the left, consistently on the right or alternating at wide intervals between left and right positioning. Some prefer one layout - similar numbers of readers prefer the other.
2) However, with relatively narrow screens and many browsers, there are distinct readability advantages to having all images, infoboxes, maps, tables and other non-text elements consistently positioned on either the right or the left and this is an objective fact.
3) What we should really try to avoid is a thin worm of text that is difficult to read because it is "sandwiched" between right and left-facing images:
Today, Taiwan maintains a large and technologically advanced military, mainly to counteract the constant threat of invasion by the People's Liberation Army using the Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China as a pretext. This law authorizes the use of military force when certain conditions are met, such as a danger to mainlanders.
From 1949 to the 1970s, the primary mission of the Taiwanese military was to "retake mainland China" through Project National Glory. As this mission has transitioned away from attack because the relative strength of the PRC has massively increased, the ROC military has begun to shift emphasis from the traditionally dominant Army to the air force and navy.
Consequently, unless someone can advance policy-compliant reasons for why this policy-busting edit should be endured, I intend to negate it shortly. BushelCandle (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Also, the Military section is one of the most overloaded with images. I'd suggest just the aircraft and the ships (and there are better images of this aircraft on the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo page). Kanguole12:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Please would you explain the concept of "overloaded" and "trim is needed" when, with the consistent and default right positioning and default sizes, all of these relevant, informative and good quality images can be comfortably accommodated without the images spilling into the subsequent section?
The images removed were an important illustrative aid to understanding the quality and range of capabilities of Taiwan's armed forces. If you believe otherwise, then please advance your rationale.
If that rationale is convincing, then our policy is to, when possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones.
Please also explain why alt text for one of the remaining images of "Two warships in dock" is superior and more helpful to the visually impaired than "Two of the navy's current destroyers in dock". --BushelCandle (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Five images is too many for a section of that size – we should select those that best illustrate what the text is saying. Not all readers are using a desktop screen.
I agree we need to keep WP:ACCESS issues in mind. Removing the sandwiching was correct, but even right-aligned, I don't think the section is really long enough to hold more than two images.
On the image choices, I don't find any of the three images currently included (thunderbolt truck, indigenous plane, American-made ships) as being significant aids to understanding. The removed military police one actually provides some useful information, and if space remains the fighter jet seems the most informative as it has a notable bit of information.
On sandwiching more generally, the practice of alternating images is well established, although placing images left can cause some issues such as overlapping with section headers. In my experience, country articles are prone to suffer from image overload (and other overloads), and careful selection is important. (For example here the APEC summit picture seems insignificant, and the caption from the relief map geography image could be modified to fit the köppen climage image instead.) CMD (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you mean the caption of the military police image, rather than the image itself. If the military police being a separate branch is so important (which I'm not sure it is), then it could be mentioned in the article text.
The destroyers are mentioned in the text, so it seems reasonable to show them (particularly for readers who know what to look for in a modern warship). Kanguole15:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
In the Transport section, the high-speed trains seem more interesting than the row of plane tails. Kanguole15:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I am taking the caption and image together in these assessments since none of the images jumps out by itself. However important the note on the Military Police is, I find it a better caption than simply identifying a vehicle. Similarly, a better caption on the ship image would be appreciated.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "The president appoints the members of the Executive Yuan as his cabinet, including a premier, who is officially the President of the Executive Yuan" to "The president appoints the members of the Executive Yuan as her cabinet, including a premier, who is officially the President of the Executive Yuan" Tamil 1972 (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Partly done: Changed to the neutral possessive "their" instead so that going back and forth each time a President of a gender is elected is not necessary. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)22:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020 (2)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
In the China Page the map has area controlled by the PRC in green and the area claimed but not controlled (Taiwan, Indian Border) in light green. Since the ROC claims but does not control mainland china, shouldn't we add claimed territories to the map in a differentiating color?
Wandavianempire (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Wandavianempire The PRC government is actively claiming Taiwan as part of its current territory and claiming it is under PRC jurisdiction. The Taiwanese government refers to its past claims as "historical claims" and does not claim to have effective jurisdiction over the PRC. Which map and territory would you include? Here is the official "national map" directly from the ROC Department of Land Management which does not include its "historical" territory: https://www.land.moi.gov.tw/chhtml/content/68?mcid=3224
Like Eclipsed830 said those claims aren’t active, they haven’t actively claimed China as part of their territory for at least 30 years. Just FYI if we’re being specific Mongolia is also within the territories historically claimed by the KMT *and* CCP yet you dont see Mongolia in a different color on the China map because the Chinese do not actively assert that claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The founding day of the Republic of China on Wikipedia misleads the Google search engine.
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Since we all know that Google uses the English version of Wikipedia as their reference to their quick search title.
For example, by the time Oct.11 2020, if you enter "中華民國建國/成立", the founding of the Republic of China in Mandarin, it will show that the founding date is December 7, 1949.
This is obviously wrong since we all know that the ROC is founded on Oct.10 1911(Wuchang Uprising) or constitutionally, Jan. 1 1912. For more information, please refer to National Day of the Republic of China. And I have to address that the public on the Formosa island is furry due to this error. here, here, and here.
As we can see, if we define the title of this page that is meant to introduce the Republic of China nowadays lousily as "Taiwan", it will shame the whole wiki community.
I proposed that we should integrate all the related pages of the Republic of China into this one since pages like Republic of China (1912–1949) constitutionally inherited by the ROC government now on the islands of Formosa.
Wikipedia is one of the most referenced "fact check" on the internet, every action in our community may arouse huge issues. We have to be clear about this.鬼米 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
鬼米: You wouldn't say "all of us". We know that Taiwan was founded in December 7, 1949. So obviously it needs to be back. --テリヤキ (Talk With Me) 00:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Google corrected this error in the morning of Oct.12 GMT+8 by source their quick search to History of the Republic of China. So I assume that this problem is now a part of the section "RfC: Taiwan's official name" in this talk. 鬼米 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@テリヤキ: There is no such thing as "Taiwan was founded in December 7, 1949". If you are referring to the ROC, it was founded on January 1, 1912. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@Matt Smith: All is based on opinions, not how we know. So that means that not just because that you and the others think it is; I am from Japan, so I might not think that The Republic of China was founded in January 1, 1912 is correct. --テリヤキ (Talk With Me) 15:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change Republic of China back to Taiwan.
If you search Wikipedia on Taiwan Passport, notice it says "Taiwan Passport".
If you look at language or Google reference or address look up, it's always referenced as "Taiwan".
When you land in Taiwan International Airport, it says "Welcome to Taiwan" Alphajun (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago315 comments44 people in discussion
Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Taiwan is a disputed land. Claimed by China as its territory but Taiwanese people claims themselves as separate country and not part of china Joo Chang (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Eggishorn, Goldsztajn, and Joo Chang: I agree the article needs some work, but i'm not able to be much more specific than the original request was. I would suggest reordering the information that is already in lead section, which i will try to do myself. The disputed status is already mentioned there, but not till the third paragraph. But it also needs some qualifying statements like "according to (the UN / the Taiwanese government / the PCR)" and possibly more references, this is a bit beyond my expertise. (I also added another discussion topic below.) Irtapil (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
There previously was an RFC asking people to decide whether Taiwan should be called "country" or "state". In reality, it should be called neither. It's a disputed territory claimed by both the PRC and ROC. A vote by a bunch of Wikipedia authors won't change that. Therefore, if anything, the real question is whether should be considered a SOVEREIGN STATE (it's not) or a PROVINCE of China (it is) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Province,_People%27s_Republic_of_China
It should most definitely not be called country, as it is now, as it's highly misleading. It should be clearly marked that the status of Taiwan is highly disputed with the consensus among UN member states being that Taiwan is part of the PRC and that the ROC is an illegitimate government. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@AmericanPropagandaHunter: I don't see problems calling Taiwan a country. According to Collins English Dictionary, a country is "one of the political units which the world is divided into, covering a particular area of land." According to Oxford Learner's Dictionary, a country is "an area of land that has or used to have its own government and laws." Taiwan clearly satisfies these definitions. There are of course other common definitions for a country but I believe none of them put the consensus among UN member states as a necessary condition. Ericpony (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
lead section doesn't reflect official status
I think the lead section needs some major revisions. The information needs to be reordered and rephrased to fit with Wikipedia's policy of being unbiased and prioritizing the consensus perspective. I came to this Wikipedia page because I am fairly confused about the situation in Taiwan, but - as far as I know from other sources - most countries do not recognise Taiwan as an independent country? Officially it is regarded as a part of China by about 98% of international governments? This is mentioned, but not till the third paragraph. I will try reordering some of the information that is already there, but someone more familiar with the topic probably needs to do some extensive re-phrasing and adding citations, adding "according to" and other qualifying phrases where needed. Irtapil (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You say the lead doesn't reflect the official status, but then say that it does, just not early enough. I tend to agree that an early mention of Taiwan's unique status would be useful, but trying to jam the fourth paragraph into the first would be overkill. We need something concise but solid, and that will be difficult.
Also, the first sentence is very heavily contested. It would be better to get consensus here before trying to change it. Kanguole09:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
"Officially it is regarded as a part of China by about 98% of international governments” not true, most countries (like the US) actually have “no opinion” as their official opinion. They avoid answering the question entirely which allows them to continue doing business with both parties. This is why the US can sell advanced weapons to Taiwan when selling arms to China or a non-country would be highly illegal, same goes for all the European countries who export goods to Taiwan that the EU banned for export to China after Tiananmen... If they considered Taiwan part of China they would be breaking their own laws. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Whether Taiwan's diplomatic allies recognize "Taiwan as a sovereign nation" is disputable. There are opinions that Taiwan's diplomatic allies actually recognize the ROC government as the representative of China rather than recognizing Taiwan as a state. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph could be placed as the second paragraph. Would probably also make more sense as the first paragraph ends with saying that Taiwan is not a of the UN.Finn.reports (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Irtapil As the others have stated, officially most (many?) countries do not take a specific position regarding the Taiwan question and consider it "unresolved". They do not have "diplomatic relations" with Taiwan, but also do not recognize that Taiwan is part of the PRC. This is the case for the United States, Canada, Japan, UK, France, etc. etc. Most of these other countries simply use ambiguous statements such as "acknowledge the Chinese position" (USA), "take note of the Chinese position" (Canada), "understand and respect" the Chinese position (Japan), etc. Eclipsed830 (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Proposed paragraph
Ok so its pretty clear that people (such as OP) are getting confused by our current paragraph. I also think its out of line with WP:DUE because it gives way more detail than needed and is too long. However I think we should increase the prominence and I agree with @Finn.reports: on where to put it. I propose moving the fourth paragraph into the second position, moving the end of the last sentence of the first paragraph and and shortened to:
The phrase "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China" has good intentions but it is ambiguous to the average reader. It would be more precise to state that "The entire country of Taiwan is claimed by the Chinese government (People's Republic) as part of China's sovereign territory"... this can be continued with "although Taiwan has historically been governed by previous Chinese regimes, Taiwan has never been governed by the contemporary People's Republic, which holds China's seat in the United Nations and is recognised by the majority of countries around the world as China's legitimate government."Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
I agree that the fourth paragraph should be trimmed (maybe not as much as that), but placing it at the end of the first paragraph would be disjointed. It would also not meet the objection of the OP, which was that Taiwan's status was not mentioned up front.
I believe that we need to revisit the first sentence, including "country", painful as it may be. I think the points that need to be made in that sentence are: Taiwan is self-governing, but it is claimed by the PRC and recognized by a small minority of countries. In that case the "most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)" bit could be dropped. Kanguole20:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan is a de facto country, that much is certain. It is one of ten de facto countries around the world, according to this Wikipedia article: List of states with limited recognition. Referring to it as precisely that, a "de facto country", could be considered neutral, though I would certainly object to any notion that it is a breakaway state (i.e. "renegade province") or merely a self-governing region (i.e. "self-governing island"). The PRC's diplomatic claim to Taiwan should be acknowledged by this Wikipedia article, but not recognised. Any claims in this article that Taiwan is anything other than a country that rules itself would be placing undue weight on the PRC's claim to Taiwan and would hence be tacitly supporting a potential PRC invasion and annexation of Taiwan; i.e. it would not be neutral. Neutrality, in the case of Taiwan, doesn't mean placing equal weight on both the claims of the "independence activists" and the opposing territorial claims of the PRC. First and foremost, the Wikipedia article about Taiwan needs to be about and for Taiwan and the Taiwanese people before any weight is placed on foreign views towards the region. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
It is recognized by almost all countries, to what extent they recognize it is another question, for instance the US recognizes them in all ways (economic, educational, cultural, intelligence, military, law enforcement, etc) besides diplomatic. The “country” question is settled, I’d wait a few years before trying to change it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I support the potential improvement in removing the "and is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)", which reads to be trivia at best, is unsourced, and is not present in the body. CMD (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Remove the words about "the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)". That is not important when describing Taiwan. WestCoastSaint (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe that Taiwan's political situation can be accurately summed up as follows (this is a pretty long description, so not really a summary): "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, is a country in East Asia... ...Taiwan's political status is heavily disputed both within Taiwan and outside of Taiwan. Significantly, China (the People's Republic of China; not to be confused with the Republic of China) claims Taiwan as part of its territory, specifically as 'Taiwan Province'. Since China is a United Nations (UN) member state with veto power, Taiwan has been unable to rejoin the UN ever since it was ejected in 1971, having previously held the seat of China in the UN from 1945 (the UN's founding date) to 1971. Taiwan is the most developed and most populous country that is not a member of the UN. Within Taiwan, major political parties hold opposing views on the sovereign identity of the country; on one hand, the Pan-Blue camp supports the idea that Taiwan is part of China and that the Republic of China (the official name of the Taiwanese government) is the legitimate government of China (including territories governed by the People's Republic of China), whereas, on the other hand, the Pan-Green camp supports the idea that Taiwan is an independent country, either as the "Republic of China on Taiwan" or as simply "Taiwan". Historically, the Republic of China was the internationally-recognised government of China from 1912 to 1949; following the Chinese Civil War, the government fled to Taiwan, an island which came under its control in 1945, having previously been a colony of the Empire of Japan. The Republic of China retained recognition as the legitimate government of China from 1949 until 1971 among many major countries in the developed world (mainly the West) despite losing control of over 99% of its territory to the People's Republic of China in 1949. Presently, Taiwan is recognised by 15 UN member or observer states around the world."Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that the proposed idea is a good one but i think to make it more clear something like "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China but governed and controlled by the Republic of China." so people would easily know that the PRC doesnt govern taiwan but only claims it.Finn.reports (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The phrase "Taiwan is governed by the Republic of China" is somewhat problematic since it implies that Taiwan is a subnational region under the rule of a foreign power (admittedly, this was the case w.r.t. the ROCxTaiwan, from 1945 to 1949), rather than being, you know, a country that rules itself. As far as I'm concerned, and I think many people would agree with me, Taiwan and the Republic of China are, effectively, one and the same. The dispute within the country is more to do with the "national identity" rather than control over territories. The current leader of the "Republic of China", Tsai Ing-wen, is ethnic-Taiwanese (Chinese) and rules over not just all Taiwanese people but also all "mainlanders (in Taiwan)", who, as far as I'm aware, don't necessarily see themselves as a separate ethnic group. --- Overall, it would be more accurate to state that Taiwan is the Republic of China, which could be phrased as "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China... etc." It's also a case of undue weight to start off with "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China". That information is important, but not as important as the goings-on within Taiwan itself. The PRC doesn't govern Taiwan and never has. It has international leverage over Taiwan on a diplomatic level, but Taiwan has always been self-governing ever since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. Before that point, the PRC never did govern Taiwan, though the direct predecessor of the PRC, the ROC, did. Since the PRC claims to be the successor state to the ROC, and since most countries of the world recognise this, a case can be made that the PRC has some kind of sovereign right to Taiwan (albeit indirectly). Though, Taiwan's status as even being a sovereign territory of the ROC is disputed; this dispute goes all the way back to World War II, back when Taiwan was under Japanese rule. The only parts of "Taiwan" that aren't disputed as ROC territory are the island groups of Kinmen and Matsu. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that Taiwan and the ROC are the same but i think that in someway there need to be stated that the prc claims Taiwan although it has no authority over it earlier in the article. Because the PRC claiming Taiwan is a large part of the conflict between Taiwan and the PRC. a solution for that could be to move the 4th paragraph between the currenr 1st and second paragrapgh.Finn.reports (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The PRC claim to Taiwan is important, but the article should first make clear that Taiwan is a country in its own right. For comparison, Belize, a Central American country that has official diplomatic relations with Taiwan (ROC), is claimed almost in its entirety by the neighbouring country of Guatemala (which, strangely, also has official diplomatic relations with Taiwan (ROC)). However, the article about Belize doesn't start off by saying "Belize is claimed by Guatemala but it's ruled by Belize". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article calls Taiwan(ROC) a country and that would mean that the PRC claiming Taiwan as a part of its territory would come later as i suggested that the 4th paragraph should become the second paragraph.Finn.reports (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
As I said, the information about the PRC's claim to Taiwan should be included in the introduction to the article, but the core information about Taiwan as a country should come first. The way you phrased it earlier, "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China but governed and controlled by the Republic of China." came across as problematic to me, for the reasons that I explained. If it were to be rephrased whilst still conveying similar information, it might be more acceptable. The specific phrase "is controlled by the Republic of China" came across as conveying the non-neutral notion that Taiwan's sovereignty (under the name Republic of China) is illegitimate. The more neutral way to phrase this information would be something like: "Taiwan (Republic of China) is a country... China (People's Republic of China) maintains a territorial claim to the entire country of Taiwan." [Subsequent references to Taiwan and China needn't reference the ROC/PRC official names.] Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I get that "Taiwan is claimed by the PRC but governed and controlled by the ROC." might have not come across as neutral after you made that comment that is why i said after it that it should be more clear that the PRC claims Taiwan and i think the easiest and maybe the best way to do that is to make the 4th paragraph the second paragraph as i said earlier.Finn.reports (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, there's not a huge difference between having the paragraph about Taiwan's political status placed as the fourth paragraph versus as the second paragraph. The introduction of a Wikipedia article is supposed to be a summary of points that are elaborated on in the body of the article. The introduction is not really supposed to be an "advertisement" or political statement. In fact, looking at the actual contents of the body of the article, the segment on Taiwan's history is clearly placed higher up than the segment on Taiwan's political status. If you were to rearrange the introduction as you've suggested, you would have to rearrange the body segments as well. Frankly, I think that's a pointless exercise, though you have every right to attempt to convince other editors that it's a good idea that will be productive and give additional substance to the article as a whole. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The Republic of China was a different entity pre-1949 when compared to post-1949. On Wikipedia, this is actually the current consensus since there's clearly an article titled "Republic of China (1912–1949)". Taiwan (Republic of China) and the People's Republic of China were both successor states of the Republic of China (1912–1949); the country having effectively been split into two post-1949. The original Republic of China government fled in exile to Taiwan and took over the administration of that territory, though that doesn't necessarily indicate that Taiwan (Republic of China) is a direct continuation of the Republic of China (1912–1949). Nominally, it is, but realistically, it isn't, and it hasn't been for decades. The boundary between the Republic of China and the modern Taiwanese republic (that is nominally still called the "Republic of China") is very vague, though one could consider the country to have changed regimes in 1996 when the first direct presidential election was held (often, it is considered to have changed a few years earlier, back in 1987, when Martial Law was lifted by the dictator Chiang Ching-kuo). EDIT: Actually, the descriptor "original Republic of China government" is somewhat misleading. One cannot deny that Chiang Kai-shek's KMT-led ROC regime on Taiwan came under heavy scrutiny, especially from former politicians of the ROC who remained in PRC-ruled mainland China, with regard to exactly how "legitimate" it was, and whether it represented the country of China as a whole, or was merely a "clique" of a failed dictator more interested in preserving his own power than serving the people. EDIT2: Here's the first sentence of that article that I linked: "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as China is a historical sovereign state in East Asia that was based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan." EDIT3: Here's an older version of that first sentence, since I noticed that it had been recently changed: "The Republic of China (ROC) was a sovereign state based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan."Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949. But Taiwan and the ROC are still two different entities, and that's why each has its own history. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
There's some truth to your point here, but there are different definitions as to what "Taiwan" is. Taiwan is a single island, it's an archipelago (the main island plus minor surrounding islands) and it's a country. Those are the three main definitions of Taiwan here on Wikipedia. So, true, Taiwan the island is not the same thing as Taiwan the country... But Taiwan the country... is a country. "Taiwan" is an alternative name for the Republic of China. By that logic, Taiwan is the same thing as the Republic of China. Even if "Taiwan" is not the official name of the country which is known as the Republic of China, it's still a very commonly used name for the country, and even government officials and administrative bodies within Taiwan refer to the country with that name (alongside the official name). For Christ's sake, the Republic of China passport has "TAIWAN" smack bang in the middle of it. So, your argument is not that Taiwan and the Republic of China are different things... Instead, you are arguing that the already well-established practice of referring to the Republic of China as "Taiwan" was wrong from the beginning, should have never gained traction and should be done away with immediately. Unfortunately, there's a fat chance of that ever happening, since the majority of people around the world know the Republic of China as "Taiwan" these days. When people do come across the name "Republic of China", they often mistake this for the official name of mainland China's government; even Donald Trump made this mistake, I recall. So yeah... The Republic of China is Taiwan simply because that's what international society as a whole believes. So, you're not gonna win this argument. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I've removed "and is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)" per the general agreement here. I don't see much agreement for any other particular changes. CMD (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan is a country!
The latest change is extremely confusing, and is only and obviously made to reflect the views of the CCP, which banned wikipedia in china, so there's really no point in kowtowing to this government! Tysonbanana4554 (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tysonbanana4554: It's not just mainland China, it's most other nations. Just one example: "Australian Government does not recognise the ROC as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government."[1]
References
^"Australia-Taiwan relationship". Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Australian Givernment. Retrieved 25 November 2020.
I think there is a double standard on Wikipedian geography. There are many other regions on Wikipedia that are called anything BUT a country (de facto state, break away state etc) even though those regions self-declare themselves a country but are not de jure status, and basically only 15 or less countries recognize them as a country. I see that a news article was more credible than UN, are news sources really what Wikipedia deem more credible than actual organizations that deal with politics? --XiaoSiWoLe (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the point you might be missing is that only one thing can be true at a time “de facto” but there may be infinite "de jure" truths at the same time. Thats the brilliant thing about law (especially international law), multiple contradictory things can be true at the same time. De jure Taiwan is *simultaneously* an independent country (Republic of China), an independent country (Republic of China, Taiwan), an independent country (Taiwan), a mere body politic, a rump state, a transitionary postcolonial state, a separate customs territory, and a province of China (there are a few more but today I’m giving explaining this on a wikipedia page not giving a polisci lecture). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue here is that the ROC no longer has "de jure" sovereignty, as the majority of the UN recognizes the PRC as the successor to the ROC. The ROC has lost de jure sovereignty, and so is not a country. Just like Kosovo, the SADR or Abkhazia, the ROC should be called a de facto state. StrangeSponge (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I see your point now. Since the ROC is a legitimate government of China, I think Taiwan should be called something along the lines of "partially-recognized country".StrangeSponge (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
How did you get the take-away from what I said that "the ROC is a legitimate government of China”? I never even mentioned legitimacy which is a different concept so far undiscussed here.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
XiaoSiWoLe Using the UN as a source to how we define a country introduces a poltiical bias though. The United Nations is a political organization, they take sides on political matters. Think of it like a private golf club; if a private golf course tells you that you are not a member and therefore not a golfer. Does that really make your not a golfer even if you are indeed a golfer? Eclipsed830 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Bravo to Horse Eye's explanation! Finally someone explained the Taiwan question perfectly. The ROC should be de jure ruler of all China but what can be considered by a lot of people as 'de facto' is in reality de jureMtonna257 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, to actually say, an edit I made on my country's wiki was reverted. Don't know why! Citing the Constitution was deemed as false info and vandalism!! Mtonna257 (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, it’s better to stick to the own Wikipedia guidelines and keep actual information which states Taiwan Island a “de facto” State and not a “country” which is not since it lacks “de jure” status. Keeping facts neutral is the best way to go whether you fancy CPC or not.
It might be helpful for you to stop using “de jure” and “de facto” since you don’t know what the terms mean. A state exists de jure when three conditions are met: a determined population on a determined territory with an effective independent government. Whether other states recognise said state has no bearing. Consequently, a State exists when three conditions of fact are met which means that a de jure state and a de facto state are perfect synonyms. Using Latin expressions you don’t understand doesn’t lend your argument the credibility you might mistakenly think it does. Île flottante (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
No, those conditions would make it a de facto state. It would be a de jure state if it actually governed the territory and population that its constitution says it does. TFD (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
No, again your use of the term of de jure is incorrect. The conditions for statehood are never determined by the internal constitutional order of a state. The de jure conditions of statehood are posed by international customary law and they are not affected by whether a state controls the entirety of its claimed territory. By your own logic, any state which has a territorial dispute over land it does not effectively administer would not exist de jure but simply de facto. Were your assertion correct, India would only be a de facto state (part of its claimed territory is administered by China), as would many other major states. The term distinction between de facto and de jure states is one that is wholly alien to the law and only used by those who do not understand the elementary principles of public international law. Île flottante (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The government of the the Republic of China only governs Taiwan Territory and makes no serious claim to the mainland. However, de jure (under the "Constitution of the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" which is the supreme law, it claims the mainland. Laws in any constitution can only be changed under the procedures set out in the constitution. "Effectively," which you used, means "actually but not officially or explicitly" (OED) or de facto rather than de jure.
Île flottante, we would say that de jure the Republic of India includes all the territory claimed in its constitution, while de facto it governs only a small area. So if it were reduced to a small territory and the world recognized an other regime that effectively controlled the rest of India, we would no longer call it the de jure government of India. TFD (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Eclipsed830 "Article 4 The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly." Since the National Assembly no longer exists, Article 12 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China provides a new method to amend the constitution: it must receive a 3/4ths vote in the Legislative Yuan followed by a vote over 50% in a referendum "in the free area of the Republic of China." TFD (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I don’t understand your point, both "existing national boundaries” and "free area of the Republic of China” are synonyms for what we on Wikipedia call Taiwan. In no way is that passage claiming sovereignty over the PRC/the mainland. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
TFD Exactly, the Free Area of the ROC is the territory that the ROC Constitution applies within. Article 1 of the Additional Articles also canceled out Article 4 of the Constitution: "The provisions of Article 4 and Article 174 of the Constitution shall not apply." Furthermore, the ROC Supreme Court was asked with Interpretation 328 in 1993 if Article 4 defined the ROC territory, for which they essentially stated Article 4 merely established instructions for changing the territory, and that defining "existing national boundaries" would be a political question that could be solved through the political process detailed in Article 4, but not by the current constitutional law or the judiciary branch (effectively abstaining from defining "existing national boundaries"). Eclipsed830 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Article 1 of the Additional Articles does not cancel out the territory of the ROC, it cancels out the original amending formula, which it replaces. And the "existing national boundaries" should mean those in existence or claimed when the constitution was written in 1947 in mainland China. I can't follow the Judicial Court document. Do you have an reliable secondary sources that say it means that the ROC no longer claims mainland China? TFD (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
TFD I think my wording is a bit confusing as I didn't want to turn this into a discussion forum, but I was specifically talking about the ROC claims with respect to the Constitution. My point is that the ROC Constitution isn't specific in defining its own territory. You are saying "existing national boundaries" refers to those boundaries in existence when the Constitution was written in 1947, but by 1947 the KMT already lost much of the north, the south was still controlled by Cliques and Mongolia was already recognized as an independent country by the ROC. Some people will make the argument that "existing national boundaries" refers to the territory of the ROC on 1 January 1912 after the Xinhai Revolution, but then "existing national boundaries" wouldn't include the island of Taiwan since the Qing signed it away to Japan with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Here is an opinion piece in that mentions Interpretation 328, but honestly there aren't many articles on this issue in English. Eclipsed830 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for providing that link. I notice that the author says that most experts interpret the existing national boundaries as I would have. The CP in 1947 considered itself to be within the ROC, it's dispute was with the KMT. The PRP isn't a country that broke away from the ROC, it considers itself the successor state. IOW the CP took control of the ROC except for Taiwan and renamed the country the PRP. But the KMT refused to recognize the new government, claiming they were the rightful government. While the ROC would probably recognize the PRP as the lawful governemnt of mainland China, China will not recognize the ROC as the legitimate government of Taiwan. if Taiwan recognizes the PRP it would mean either that they had surrendered to CP rule or that they had declared independence, which would anger the PRP. So they remain in a largely unrecognized government in exile that continues to control a small part of China.
Therefore, Taiwan operates as an independent state with limited official recognition, but with a lot of unofficial recognition.
Hi everyone. I believe the recent change you're talking about is due to a video (Wikipedia Takes Political Stance, Calls Taiwan a "Country") on Youtube uploaded lately. I would suggest you watch that video yourselves, because it really made a strong point that how WP is inconsistent in statements.
And I'd like to remind Tysonbanana4554 (who also created this subtitle), whenever you're accusing opinions supporting mainland China of being conducted by CCP, there might be someone to question your identity or the neutrality of WP, likewise. So please stay away from those words. There's no need to question the motivation. Just follow the Wikipedia guidelines, and things will be settled.
This (here in the Talk page) is actually my first edit on WP, and I'm still trying to understand the policies here, so I don't expect myself to be involved in a lot of discussion here very soon.
So far as I understand the policies/guidelines in WP, I think this might just be an issue as simple as Conflicting sources (WP:CONFLICTING, or alias WP:THISORTHAT), because there are plenty of reliable sources (WP:RS) in mainland China that don't regard Taiwan as a country. Reading the RfC: Taiwan, "country" or "state" that supported the change (from "state" to "country") in May/June (This and this, to be specific), however, I don't find anyone mentioning WP:CONFLICTING (or alias WP:THISORTHAT).
If the conflict is about an interpretation of the facts rather than a simple matter of fact, and cannot be resolved by demonstrating some of the conflicting sources to be in error, in order to maintain a neutral point of view, include all significant points of view with appropriate attributions. In those cases, it is up to the reader to choose which source they want to believe personally and not the task of Wikipedia editors to choose for them.
At the very least, we should say "de facto state" or "de facto country", but not "country".
I'm still studying policies about overwriting previous edits. I'd appreciate it if someone points me to the right direction.
PS:
I'm not very happy to talk under a non-neutral title "Taiwan is a country!", which holds an opinion I don't agree with. Before you make that statement, I think you should take a look at the history of this article and see if they match up (how long it had been "state" till this April).
Will it be fine if I change the subtitle to something more neutral? --In wkpd (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your point about Taiwan qualifying as a "state" but not a "country", the two terms are more-or-less synonyms, so your argument doesn't make sense. Also, as Île flottante put it, there's no real difference between a "de facto country/state" and a "de jure country/state". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Did you seriously cite Nathan Rich? I'm still trying to process your comment, but, sorry, that man is an absolute joke. Nothing he says should be taken at face value in any capacity. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
What Chinese WP:RS did you have in mind? Nathan Rich certainly isn't a WP:RS, they’re a fringe YouTuber with no academic or journalistic credentials to speak of. Its hard to imagine them making any coherent point, let alone a strong one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I thought you all know it. But isn't it a common sense that countries around the world do contradict with each other sometimes?
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. ...
So of course sources are not consider to be not WP:RS just because they're from China.
Speaking of Nathan Rich, first of all, please don't misinterpret me. I'm not saying the video link is a RS. I sent the message here just to let you guys know what's happening. And speaking of RS, you do know Wikipedia is not a reliable source, right? However you gave me a WP link of him. Don't just throw a whole WP article to me, please be specific. I'm not saying you should believe every sentence he made. I just want you to listen to his points, and correct him if he's wrong. Why don't you just prove him wrong if you're so confident you're right? Discuss about the issue he's talking about. Don't judge by person.
And speaking of making coherent points, Nathan is one of the most coherent people I've seen. His videos are mostly based on facts, and a lot of his videos are criticising other videos that are not coherent or not based on fact. Speaking of academic or journalistic credentials, I'm glad you mention this. His videos of the COVID-19 timelines are incredibly circumstantial. I'll give you one example here. Check it out yourself. In that video, he is actually doing investigative journalism that mainstream news media should be doing but are not.
He never makes a video criticising China, and he admits it, that he's intentionally avoiding those topics, but that's just the nature of Youtube channels that involve in politics. I watch videos on both sides (supporting China and hating China), so I know that. Channels that hate China will never upload a video criticising western media's bias against China.
Maybe Taiwan(ROC) should be called a de facto country as that is what the situation is and as other countries with limited recognition on wikipedia also are being stated as de facto. Or other countries who are stated as de facto should be listed as countries.Finn.reports (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Your second suggestion should be implemented. All states with limited recognition, as they are listed on Wikipedia, should be described in their respective articles as "countries". In their blurb/intro, an explanation of disputes relating to their political status can be provided. EDIT: Each country's situation is different. The way that Taiwan is described on its own Wiki page should have no bearing on the ways that other countries are described on their own Wiki pages, and vice versa. Taiwan's current description as a "country" has been the result of months of community discussion and consensus that has specifically been about this one page. The discussions on this page about Taiwan should not affect the discussions about other countries on other pages, at least not directly. Personally, I do think Kosovo, Somaliland and Artsakh should be described as countries, but it's not within my power to change their descriptions within their respective Wikipedia articles without first establishing a community consensus with other editors within their own articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan should be listed as a de facto country or a country with limited recognition as that is the current situation. Of course every country that is disputed or has limited recognition has a different situation but one thing they have in common is that they are all countries with limited recognition or disputed, which makes them comparable in that way.Finn.reports (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
That's not the point. What I was saying was that, regardless of what you personally believe, each article on Wikipedia is independent from every other article. Whatever we do and say here, on Taiwan, has no bearing on what is done and said on other articles on Wikipedia. So, really, discussions about whether to call Taiwan a "country" or "de facto country" should have no bearing on similar discussions about other countries (whether they are members of the United Nations or not) and vice versa. On that note, there's no real authority being used to determine whether these ten "de facto countries" (as listed on List of states with limited recognition) are countries or de facto countries, aside from the list of United Nations member states. However, UN membership actually isn't the definitive word on whether or not a country qualifies as a real country. Switzerland, for example, joined the UN in 2002, but I'm sure you'd agree that it was a country even before it joined the UN. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I never said that only UN member states are countries. But Taiwan(ROC) is a country with limited recognition at the moment but it is still a country as it operates as a country and has sovereignty over a territory the only thing that it doesn't has is wide spread recognition that is why i think it might not be a bad idea to refer Taiwan(ROC) as a country with limited recognisition or a de facto country (which is a country with limited recognisition)EDIT: Which is the most neutral as it describes the current situation.Finn.reports (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
In that vein of thinking, China is also a "state with limited recognition", since 16 member states or observer states of the United Nations explicitly do not have official diplomatic relations with China; those countries are Taiwan's 14 UN allies, the Holy See (a UN observer, which has relations with Taiwan) and Bhutan (which has relations with neither China nor Taiwan). China does have widespread recognition, sure, but it's certainly not recognised by 100% of countries around the world or even by 100% of UN member states. So, in fact, if you want to be EXTRA neutral, you should go over to China's Wiki page and change its description in its intro to "China is a country with limited recognition". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
China doesn't have limited recognition but has wide spread recognition as most countries recognise it. Taiwan is a country with limited recognition and that is just the current situation. It seems like you don't want to be neutral which is what wikipedia should be.Finn.reports (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt your conversation. I have a question (not an argument): Why is Palestine, recognised by 138 UN member countries and already an observer member of the UN considered a "de jure" sovereign "state", "claiming" the West Bank and the Gaza strip (it's constituents), but Taiwan, not a UN member of any kind and recognised by 14 very small countries (mainly small islands) considered a "country"? The double standard is unbearable.
I repeat that I'm just questioning, and I'm mainly concerned that Palestine is not considered a country, but that could be tolerated if there was some kind of standard. Nicxjo (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Because Taiwan has at one time (as the Republic of China) been a member of the UN and a fully sovereign state. Palestine has never been either of those.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Because Palestine can't even enforce sovereignty within its own internationally-recognised borders. Israeli tanks drive around Palestinian soil on the West Bank daily, Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinian citizens on Palestinian soil regularly, and the West Bank is full of Israeli settlements where the Palestinian government holds zero control. If you look at this map, this is the actual control that the Palestinian government holds within its own borders. In reality, they control less than 30% of their own land. This is absolutely not comparable to the situation in Taiwan. --benlisquareT•C•E09:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Why saying "Taiwan is a country." as the first sentence is very wrong and misleading
Most countries in the world, including the United States and most other significant nations, do not recognize Taiwan as a "country".
The international law does not recognize Taiwan as a "country".
Why it's misleading. Especially for people in the west, they need to know the fact that Taiwan is not simply a "country". Things like not including Taiwan in map of China will cause significant consequences that Wikipedia readers absolutely deserve to know. Imagine a staff making a PPT that will include a map of China, and he sees the Google result on the right. He may choose a map of China without Taiwan, and cause trouble to his company.
We should not simply say "Taiwan is a country" or "Taiwan is not a country", which is non-neutral, misleading and may cause real life troubles to readers because of inaccuracy of infomation. Taiwan's political status dispute should be mentioned in the first sentence, because it's about its identity and may cause significant consequences.
For example, we can change from
Taiwan officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia. Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, ...
to something like this:
Taiwan, an island in East Asia, is legally a part of China (the PRC), but also broadly considered a de facto state.[note 1]
You may add "de facto" and "state" as wikilink, or add more references, or change some of the wording. But I just want to point out 2 things:
There's "(the PRC)" following "China" not to be mistaken with "Republic of China (ROC)". I think the term "Republic of China (ROC)" is misleading if put in the first sentence, because most people around the world only use "China" and "Taiwan". This term can be moved to 2nd sentence or later. The term "Republic of China (ROC)" is used in certain circumstances which need to be bettered explained. And what does "officially" mean? Does America "officially" calls Taiwan "Republic of China (ROC)"? I haven't done the research for now, so I can't tell for sure. Please help me do the research and comment below.
There shall be a footnote at the end of sentence, pointing to the specific chapter.
"Imagine a staff making a PPT that will include a map of China, and he sees the Google result on the right. He may choose a map of China without Taiwan, and cause trouble to his company." You honestly think this is a thing that happens? That's bloody fantastic, if true. In any case, why should I care whether some buffoon makes a PowerPoint and ends up losing his China job as a result? If he's that stupid to make such a blunder like that, then that's totally on him. Personally, I prefer not to do business with totalitarian states. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I must say, initially, I thought you were genuinely concerned with improving the contents of this Wikipedia article. Now, I know you're just salty because you lost your China job over some PowerPoint that you threw together in half an hour. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Your formatting is bloody annoying. With that aside, I'd like to point out that Taiwan is not legally part of the PRC and never has been. I will respond to the rest of your points in a moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Right, so, first off, Taiwan has never been part of the PRC. The PRC claims Taiwan, and very few countries officially recognise Taiwan as a country, sure. But in reality, these are actually two separate issues, although they are related. It's not a zero-sum game. When countries don't recognise Taiwan, that doesn't automatically mean that they recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC. For example, the United States doesn't recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC, despite having official diplomatic relations with the PRC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
There is another point that is important to highlight. The United Nations does not have the capacity to recognise the sovereignty of states. Only states can recognise other states. { https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ0Lfe8jVBI }. The United Nations has a list of member states, which is commonly seen as a measure of sovereignty, but this doesn't technically amount to recognition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
It's true that international law does not recognise Taiwan as a country, technically speaking. More accurately, Taiwan is politically a proto-state, i.e. an emerging country. That's actually a more suitable way to describe it. However, unlike most other proto-states, Taiwan has all of the trappings of a fully-developed sovereign state, giving the impression that it actually is a proper country even though it isn't. The reason Taiwan has so much infrastructure already in existence is that it is effectively the successor state to the Republic of China on Taiwan, which was effectively a rump state of the Republic of China (1912–1949). There is an ongoing debate in international and domestic (Taiwanese/ROC) law about whether Taiwan (Republic of China) is the successor state of the Republic of China (1912–1949) or is a completely new country. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
What must be said, however, is that Taiwan is a proto-state that is occupying territory that, as of yet, is actually not under the sovereignty of any official country in the world. Taiwan is not under China's sovereignty, though it also isn't under the sovereignty of Japan or the United States, two other countries that are strongly legally tied to Taiwan, nor is Taiwan under Taiwan's own sovereignty. However, Taiwan also isn't terra nullius since it also clearly has a defined population. More accurately, Taiwan is a non-self-governing territory whose status has not been resolved ever since Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan in 1951 with the Treaty of San Francisco. The most similar political entity to Taiwan in the present day is probably Western Sahara, a former colony of Spain that never truly gained its independence. Spain relinquished sovereignty over Western Sahara but Mali and Morocco annexed Western Sahara shortly afterward. Mali later withdrew from the territory. Meanwhile, a localist pro-independence militia, the Polisario Front, took control of part of the territory and declared a Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which became a proto-state. In Taiwan's case, it was relinquished by Japan in 1951. However, China annexed Taiwan a few years earlier, in 1945, and Taiwan was shortly after disputed between the ROC and PRC regimes of China as a consequence of the Chinese Civil War. Taiwan's political status was never properly resolved due to the dispute over which government of China was legitimate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with most of the paragraph above and would just like to add that, the US and the UK did not agree with China's unilateral action of annexing Taiwan and stated that the transfer of the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan needs to be settled in a peace treaty (which it was not in the later-concluded San Francisco Peace Treaty). --Matt Smith (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Yep. At the time that the ROC annexed Taiwan, few major world powers recognised this completely. The United States tacitly "allowed" the ROC to occupy Taiwan but never officially recognised the ROC's decision to fully integrate Taiwan into the ROC. Meanwhile, the UK switched diplomatic recognition from the ROC to the PRC very early on but still didn't recognise the ROC's unilateral annexation of Taiwan (I'm not sure whether the UK recognises Taiwan as "part of the PRC" nowadays, though). In the present day, there certainly are countries that recognise Taiwan as part of China (the PRC). This seemingly includes countries like Burma and Cambodia, both of which are dictatorships in Southeast Asia. However, there are also a number of countries that maintain diplomatic relations with the PRC but are also simultaneously ambiguous regarding their recognition of Taiwan as part of China. This includes the United States, Canada and Australia, to my knowledge. There are probably many other examples. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The ROC was responsible for occupying Taiwan and that was part of the Allies' arrangements of the post-war military occupation just like the US was responsible for occupying the Japan proper. In fact, it was the US which used its navy ship to ship Chinese occupation forces onto Taiwan because the ROC did not have usable navy ships at that time.
As for the UK's current position of Taiwan's status, from the sources I've seen so far:
The UK "acknowledged" the position of the government of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC and "recognised" the PRC Government as the sole legal Government of China.
Obviously, Taiwan's equivalent of the Polisario Front is the Democratic Progressive Party, which took control of Taiwan in 2000–2008, and again from 2016–present. Additionally, Lee Teng-hui a Kuomintang politician, was secretly working for the independence movement in order to undermine the ROC's authority over Taiwan; he was the president of the ROC from 1988–2000. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The major difference between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of Taiwan and the Polisario Front of Western Sahara is that the DPP usurped the Kuomintang/ROC rump state in Taiwan through legal, democratic means rather than violent warfare. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
In conclusion, Taiwan's political status is extremely complex. It's not a country per se, though it's also not legally part of the PRC either. I'm not totally against the rewording of Taiwan's description as a "country" in the introduction, since it's certainly not a proper country, as I've pointed out here. However, I am vehemently opposed to any notion that Taiwan is legally part of the PRC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't care if most countries don't officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country. It's doublespeak. Sure, they don't "officially" recognize it as a country, but de facto, they are dealing with Taiwan just like a country via "unofficial" channels. What matters the most here is how the media sees Taiwan, and most of them say Taiwan is a country. pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law!04:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:CONFLICTING is an essay, and not a Wikipedia policy, so it bears no substance when formulating policy-based decisions. When there is a content dispute, the article content follows the established community consensus, and based on past discussion, the consensus was that Wikipedia should use the phrasing "country" when referring to Taiwan. Editors who disagree with community consensus have no excuse to engage in edit warring and other such forms of disruptive editing, as seen from 21 November onwards; while it's certainly true that consensus can change at any time, this requires editors who challenge the status quo to initiate a community discussion to change the consensus first. Plus, contrary to the allegations brought forth by Nathan Rich's video, Wikipedia consensus is not a democratic vote, but rather is based on the validity of arguments from the perspective of policy, so the claim that the current consensus was brought forth by a majority of stupid editors picking on an oppressed minority of valiant editors through sheer numbers is completely inane and nonsensical.
Now, while I'd certainly welcome a new formal RFC discussion to gauge new consensus over this issue if editors are clamouring for one so much, I do have to address a few points that have been raised by proponents who have recently called for Taiwan to be rephrased as "legally part of the PRC" instead:
Nathan Rich's video does an extremely poor job at directly addressing the points raised by the earlier RFC that established the consensus that Wikipedia should refer to Taiwan as a country, since he frames his desired talking point first, and then builds the scene around that. He makes no effort to address the Montevideo Convention, Taiwan's de facto foreign policy, or any of the theories of statehood. He desperately clings to "the UN says this, the UN says that", as if the UN is the sole arbitrator on determining what is and isn't a country (despite that countries have existed before the UN was formed in 1945, and that countries such as San Marino did not join the UN until very late into the game).
There is excessive focus on how other limited-recognition entities such as Palestine are described in their article lead paragraphs. However, Wikipedia does not revolve around precedent, nor is uniformity between articles stipulated by policy. There is no policy-based argument for multiple different articles to follow any semblance of consistency.
User:In wkpd's argument that Wikipedia's phrasing harms readers and companies because they might accidentally omit Taiwan from a map of China is dubious at best, because Wikipedia does not exist to fix injustices or pursue noble causes. Per Wikipedia:General disclaimer, readers may only use Wikipedia at their own risk. If somebody is shot and killed because of one of my edits to Wikipedia, it's not my fault, nor is it Wikipedia's fault.
The ROC no longer has de jure claim over the entirety of mainland China, the Republic of Mongolia, and Tannu Tuva as of 2005, and anyone that claims otherwise is intentionally twisting the spirit of the law with intent to deceive. Taiwan and Mongolia established country-to-country relations in 2002, so anyone who makes the argument that mainland China is "constitutionally" territory of the ROC is conveniently ignoring the case with Mongolia. Furthermore, prior to 2002, Chinese diaspora with ancestry from Tianjin, Hubei, Jiangsu, Fujian, or any other Chinese province could apply for an ROC passport with special status that did not grant right of abode in Taiwan; now, they cannot, further cementing the fact that now that Kuomintang dictatorship rule has ended, Chinese citizens are no longer ROC citizens, in the eyes of ROC law.
Per the dogma of self-determination, a country is a country when it considers itself one. The Kuomintang is no longer in power, and the present-day official position of the Tsai Ing-wen administration of the ROC government is that "there is no need for Taiwan to declare independence, because it is already independent, and its name is the Republic of China on Taiwan". Until the Kuomintang comes back to power (and it seems more and more unlikely with each passing day, based on two-party preferred opinion polling), the Democratic Progressive Party's interpretation of the statehood of the ROC will remain the official interpretation of the ROC government. On the other hand, the PRC has never placed boots on the ground in Taiwan at any point in history, and it is the PRC that declared its own secessionist state from the ROC in 1949, and not the other way around. With this in mind, any suggestion that the PRC somehow holds enforceable sovereignty over Taiwan based on the succession of states theory is making a claim based on pure fantasy. To argue that Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires us to also give equal representation to this fantasy is a pure farce, because the neutrality policy makes it very clear that fringe viewpoints do not deserve "equal footing".
This discussion has already gotten quite messy, with it splitting into multiple talk page sections for no apparently useful purpose; it'd be much appreciated if we can have the discussion take place in a single location for the sake of comprehensibility. --benlisquareT•C•E09:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I totally agree with pretty much everything you've written here. I just want to point out that In wkpd has declared lower down on this page that he only joined Wikipedia a few days ago. Furthermore, he has no prior knowledge about Taiwan, China, the ROC, the PRC, or literally anything relevant to this Wikipedia article. He's far from an expert on this topic... The topic literally has nothing to do with him. He claims that he decided to join Wikipedia and start assaulting this article on its claim "Taiwan is a country" after initially watching Nathan Rich's YouTube video "Taiwan is not a Country (even if you wish really hard)", which was only released a couple of days ago as well. I honestly have no clue what this guy's schtick is... It's just bizarre, to be honest. Like... why is he putting so much effort into defaming and denouncing Taiwan even though he literally didn't give two hoots about this issue only like a week ago? It's seriously confusing, concerning and comical. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether you're replying to me. However, I will say, I literally only just regurgitated information that In wkpd already laid out in another comment on this same talk page. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense. I will say, I'm generally quite concerned about the fact that Nathan Rich's video was cited in this talk page (twice!!) without any background being provided about Nathan Rich's political motives and academic background. The statements that he made in his video were taken completely at face value by numerous Wikipedians in this talk page, and an absurd and furious debate was sparked and has been raging on for days. Again and again, I've questioned the entire foundation of this debate... Why are Wikipedians here refusing to question the veracity of the source? Several Wikipedians have claimed that "the source is irrelevant and is just a conversation starter". This argument is doubtful... Why should we permit a conversation to be started when the very basis of that conversation cannot be verified and when certain Wikipedians are actively trying to prevent other Wikipedians from even attempting to verify this basis? In my opinion, this entire situation is an attempt at gaslighting by malign actors. It is potentially even a brigade that is being sponsored by Nathan Rich himself. He has a history of doing that (he wrote his own Wikipedia article and tried to promote his business ventures there; however, he was eventually shut down by admins/moderators). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
In the space of one week, 15,000 words have been exchanged throughout this debate. Even if Nathan Rich doesn't win this battle, he will still have gained for himself a significant platform that he certainly does not deserve in any capacity. This entire situation is a publicity stunt on the behalf of Nathan Rich. No matter what happens, he will still make big bucks in the end. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Neither of your points matters. Whether other countries recognize Taiwan or whether international law recognizes it is irrelevant to Taiwan itself. A country is a country whether anyone else recognizes it or even knows it exists. --Khajidha (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The first sentences doesnt say that Taiwan is a country but that the ROC is a country which it is often reffered as. I do think that the first sentence should be improved by saying for example "Taiwan officially the Republic of China is a partially recognised country/country with limited recognition/de facto country in east Asia." one of those three options would be the best in my opinion and the most factually correct and the most neutral.Finn.reports (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Because those countries are widely recognized and Taiwan(ROC) is not. You dont single out Taiwan(ROC)in that way it is just the current situation.Finn.reports (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unrecognised in terms of reality, or unrecognised merely in terms of bureaucratic doublespeak with the aim of saving face? Can Taiwan purchase F-16V jets and M1 Abrams tanks? Does United States federal law prohibit the sales of advanced jets and tanks to non-state actors? Just like any interaction between human adults, what someone says at face value isn't necessarily reflective of their true intentions, and we should not pretend that the official statements of countries represent any form of reality, and instead look at the real-world behaviours of countries instead. Third-party reliable sources are certainly capable of distinguishing between de facto government policy and diplomatic circus, so there's no reason why Wikipedia cannot do the same. Governments say one thing, and do another; governments claim that they acknowledge the one-China policy, while treating Taiwan as a country in reality. --benlisquareT•C•E17:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The current situation is that Taiwan(ROC) is officialy recognised by 15 countries. So the best terms to describe Taiwan(ROC) would be a country with limited recognition/a partially recognised country/ a de facto country. Taiwan(ROC) is a sovereign country but it is just a sovereign country with limited recognition as most countries dont officialy recognise it and most countries dont have any official or unoffical diplomatic relationships with Taiwan(ROC).Finn.reports (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The term "de facto country" is redundant. It just means "objectively, based on the reality of the situation, a country". Describing Taiwan as just a "country" carries the exact same meaning. Now, what you could say is that Taiwan is a country, although many countries believe its existence to be illegitimate and a violation of Chinese sovereignty. However, objectively, many countries actually do recognise that Taiwan exists, regardless of whether they consider it to be legitimate. This is evident since many countries conduct trade with Taiwan and have "representative offices" in Taiwan. EDIT: Taiwan is basically like the black market or the deep web of the international community, especially with regard to consumer products, manufacturing and tech. EDIT2: Here in Australia, you can go to a Costco and purchase Taiwanese beef jerky that is clearly labelled "made in Taiwan". To me, that amounts to recognition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Most countries don't have any diplomatic relations with Taiwan(ROC). If a label of "made in Taiwan" is your indication of something calling a country with widespread recognition. Than do you consider Hong Kong a country too? As things that are manufactured in Hong Kong are also labelled "made in Hong Kong" except by The U.S. since August.Finn.reports (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Its interesting that you choose to focus on diplomatic relations rather than economic, educational, law enforcement, military and intelligence relations. Most theorists consider diplomatic relations to be the least important of the bunch. I’m not aware of a major power that doesn't have relations with Taiwan, are you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I said any diplomatic relationships which means no unofficial or official diplomatic relationships. Major powers dont decide which countries have widespread recognition and no major power has official relationships with Taiwan(ROC). Most countries dont have any relationships with taiwan official or unofficial which means that Taiwan(ROC) is a country with limited recognition/partially recognised or a de facto country.Finn.reports (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
No. Your opinion here is ridiculously POV. Moreover your claims regarding international law are simply wrong as Taiwan meets all the conditions of international law for statehood. Taiwan is both a de facto and a de jure state (even though such designations are not technical legal terms as they are synonymous). Île flottante (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
There are opinions that Taiwan does not meet all the conditions of international law for statehood because the PRC's claim of sovereignty over the island of Taiwan has been recognized by most states in the world. Therefore, "Taiwan is both a de facto and a de jure state" is a POV, too. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
For a guy claiming to understand international law you’ve just stuck your foot in your mouth... "Taiwan is both a de facto and a de jure state” is a completely unobjectionable statement and in no way negates the statement "Taiwan is both a de facto state and a de jure province of China” because multiple de jure truths exist at the very same time... Especially in international law. If South Korea made a law saying that Taiwan was South Korea’s official butt plug emporium then de jure Taiwan would be a South Korean butt plug emporium along with an independent country and province of China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
That law still does not say Taiwan is a state. It just says that, to the US, the notions of country, state, etc, apply to Taiwan as well. In my opinion, the purpose of that law is to make up for the lack of diplomatic relations between the two, which is mentioned at the beginning of the law.
Here is a more straightforward quote:
The United States does not recognize the “Republic of China” as a state or government.
Thats not a law, and in context that doesn't mean what you’re trying to say it does. You’re also dodging the point of Taiwanese law, which is all we’ve ever needed. Remember you said "And has any polity made a law saying that Taiwan is a state? None.” which we have established is false. I’m not sure why you phrased it that way, even taking the Chinese line Taiwan is a polity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You should have said that then, there was no way to get that from what you said. Do you accept that as written your statement was incorrect? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
"And has any polity made a law saying that Taiwan is a state? None.” You’ve agreed its incorrect, you said that you meant polity besides Taiwan.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I meant polities besides the ROC. If you think the US defined Taiwan as a state, I had explained that I think you're misunderstanding its law. And if you really know about the US's policy toward Taiwan, you would have clearly known that the US has always regarded Taiwan's status as unsettled since 1952. It's a general knowledge in the diplomatic circles when it comes to Taiwan-US relationship. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Don’t try to change the subject. It might be what you meant but its not what you wrote. What you wrote was wrong and you need to own that right now. You’ve read 22 USC §3303 below so you know that under US law Taiwan is to be treated the same as other "countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities.” now you haven't actually presented any law for us to interpret, have you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn't and don't want to change the subject. I was just providing a side evidence that the US does not regard Taiwan as a state.
You can't deny the fact that the "22 USC §3303" does not explicitly define Taiwan as a state. You misinterpreted the law.
If the US really regards Taiwan as a state, the law never needs to use such an ambiguous wording saying the terms of countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities shall apply with respect to Taiwan. In stead, the law can be straightforward and simply say "The United States recognizes Taiwan as a state." Plain and simple. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I thought "side evidence" is an English phrase, and it looks like my memory didn't serve correctly. I'm not sure how you native English speakers call it, but I meant "evidence from a different angle". --Matt Smith (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's not lose track of the elephant in the room here. The point of all this discussion is that governments tell lies as naturally as they breathe, and if you still don't understand this elementary concept, then you have no business "schooling us" on international geopolitics. The United States has no obligation to be straightforward, because it is the very nature of geopolitics to read between the lines, however that does not change what the United States' real world actions have been over the past half century. If you are insistent that we make judgements over the words of governments rather than their actions, then there's no resolution to this, and we'll be in perpetual disagreement. --benlisquareT•C•E22:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan(ROC) is a country with limited or a partially recognised country which is often refered to as de facto. Taiwan is at the moment not a de jure country as it has not widespread recognition.[1]Finn.reports (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan is de jure a country, but its also de jure a province of China. Multiple de jure truths can exist at the same time, only one de facto truth can exist at the same time. You can’t keep making this claim when you don’t understand the term you’re using. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan(ROC) is not de jure country as explained by this sentence from cambridge dictionary: "The country has de facto independence now, and it will soon be recognized de jure by the world's governments." [2]Taiwan(ROC) is not widely recognized so it is not a de jure country.Finn.reports (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
You still seem to be quite convinced that "because a country says so, then it is so", and don't believe in roundabout diplomatic doublespeaks. How about I give you an example of monkey-patching legalese that'll nip it in the bud? I present to you, United States Code, 22 USC §3303:
(b) Application of United States laws in specific and enumerated areas
The application of subsection (a) of this section shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
(1) Whenever the laws of the United States refer or relate to foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities, such terms shall include and such laws shall apply with respect to Taiwan.
Put into simple words, you can't refer to Taiwan as a country because the United States "recognises" (lol) the one-China policy, so instead, the US has redefined the term "country" to mean "country, or Taiwan". The English language has essentially been monkey-patched by lawyers, just so America can pretend that it "respects" the one-China policy. Can we please stop pretending that countries actually mean what they say? It's clear as day that reality does not work that way. If the US did not recognise Taiwan (while trying to give China face at the same time), then there would be no need to go to such great lengths to jump through all these legalese hoops. The United States and its allies, in practice, recognise Taiwan as a country, while pretending otherwise, end of story. Taiwan has global recognition in practice, end of story. --benlisquareT•C•E16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
We use dictionaries for their definitions, not to cherry pick example sentences from. Even by your argument Taiwan is widely recognized, we’re arguing about different types of recognition not an absolute lack of recognition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan(ROC) is not a widely recognised country only 66 countries have a relationship with Taiwan(ROC) with most of them unofficial.Finn.reports (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I made i mistake i meant to say 73 but i only looked at the representative offices in Taiwan. That number is in the lead of the article of you add the official relationships with the unofficial relationships.EDIT: I only looked at the representatives in Taiwan with the first number which is 66.Finn.reports (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The list on the wikipedia page isn't meant to be exhaustive and one of the numbers in the lead is unsourced and doesn't appear in the body. We cant use that to make an assertion about how many states have relations with Taiwan. We need a WP:RS. Also just a point of order but the lead gives either 14 or 15 and 57 as the number of states... So the number you would be arguing would be 71 or 72. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe if the PRC stop pretending that they are socialist, stop pretending that they respect human rights, and stop harassing our fishermen in the West Philippine Sea, I'd consider respecting them. pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law!03:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Notes
^See the chapter of Taiwan political status dispute
Did anyone actually end up reviewing Nathan Rich's video point-for-point? It seems that we just ended up descended into a pointless general discussion about Taiwan's sovereignty, with very little specific references to Nathan Rich's video. In any case, I've found this reaction video which could be of note. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvcCQPhbBmMJargo Nautilus (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I'm here to show you a little more history of the recent incident before this section was created, because it seems you didn't notice that this video had been mentioned above (in the last section).
On 21 Nov, the video was uploaded.
On 22, Leonhang changed "country" to "state", probably for the first time since it was changed from "state" to "country" 5 months ago. Apparently it's due to the video.
This change, together with a series of edits following, caused the following event.
Later the same day (12:19, 22 Nov), Tysonbanana4554 created a new setction Taiwan is a country! on this Talk page.
(People here in the Talk page were unaware of what caused the recent change, so I later came here and talked about the video, in the previous section, on 23 Nov.)
And then (13:09, 22 Nov), it was changed back to "country" by Île flottante, so you might not know the recent edit war just happened.
There's another thing you might want to know. This Talk page has a ton of archived discussions. The most important one you should know is the RfC: Taiwan, "country" or "state" (Requests for comment) that happened this May and finally decided to call taiwan a "country".
I'm seeing a lot of people discussing, but you should really read first. For example, user @Davidbena has been mentioning "double standard" (at 23:52, 25 November 2020), but it has already been discussed in the RfC I just showed you.
There's no point discussing the same thing over and over again. If we don't find out the real problem here, even if we could make a consensus this time, I wouldn't be surprised if someday it is changed back again.
This issue is talked about a lot of times before, including but not limited to:
Please READ and SLOW DOWN the discussion! Taiwan has been a "country" on this page for 5 months already! We don't need to rush to an agreement! Take your time! We all need to slow down!
Because of that video, I started to explore Wikipedia just a few days ago. And this is also the first time I start to google the history of relations between PRC, ROC and USA, and political status of Taiwan, and so on.
So why don't you do enough research and come back to make a strong point?
To be honest, you guys are throwing too much words. Everybody's typing, nobody is reading. I can't read all your replies for now, because my first priority is to read the Wikipedia policies and gidelines, and google things like "what is the difference between state and country".
Another thing I strongly recommend you to read is Five pillars and Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
(You can click the show button on the right to see the content, or copy the source code to you sandbox, or you can find it at the bottom of this page.)
My next reply will be under the last section (Taiwan is a country!). I'm going to make a statement, that saying "Taiwan is a country" as the first sentence is absolutely wrong and misleading. If you want to hear it, then check out the last section. You might have to wait for a day or two though. It will be a short reply, with 1 or 2 real life examples. I'm not posting it in this section because I'm not here to talk about Nathan Rich.
If you want to reply to me, please reply in the last section, under my first edit in this talk page, and (please use {{ping|In wkpd}} on reply).
I'm inserting this blue box as a notice board, to inform you about the discussion history. So please don't reply me under or inside the box.
--In wkpd (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Davidbena: As far as i can see it, however valid we may find Taiwan's claim of autonomy, the Wiki article presenting a stance that about ~97% of other countries disagree with (and the few who disagree are all micro-states or tiny Pacific islands) seems to not be consistent with Wikipedia's policy of being unbiased and presenting views points proportionate to their global support.
We could even refer to it as a "country" throughout, given it's more succinct than "semi autonomous region" or other terms, but the opposing view should be prominently mentioned, or the page doesn't seem like a very realistic depiction of the current situation.
I'm not even sure what the point would be of presenting a one sided point of view?
"Reality isn't decided by popular vote", so - for example - even if half the world didn't believe in evolutionary biology the unscientific view doesn't warrant weighting proportionate to popular support. But issues about borders and national sovereignty aren't really about "reality"? Borders and countries only exist as far as others agree they exist, and an independent country of Taiwan isn't something most of the world recognises as existing?
Possibly there's some harm minimization angle i'm missing? But i can't see any that make sense? If the authors of this article want to support the residents of Taiwan, then pretending their problem doesn't exist does not seem helpful? It would be like an page on Palestine that neglected to mention Israel? Or a page about the Indigenous people of Canada or Australia that read as if colonialism never happened?
@Horse Eye's Back: They were not including it as a citation in the article, so the reliable source standard is not applicable. I think @Davidbena: intended to show this as an example of the public perception of Wikipedia's coverage of this topic? Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back:, @Slatersteven:, The video is not presented here as RS, but rather the arguments raised in the video. Wasn't this self-evident? We can still discuss the issues raised by Nathan Rich and seek to verify whether or not things written here, in this article, comply with Wikipedia policies. BTW: Talk-Pages are meant for doing just this. Nathan Rich opens-up with a strong statement that seems to show there is being exercised here, with respect to Taiwan, a certain discrepancy. As for Nathan Rich, see his Wikipedia article.Davidbena (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Nathan Rich's Wikipedia article had a significant amount of content deleted by moderators earlier this year or within the past two years (I haven't checked when, exactly) because he himself, the subject of the article, was editing the article and essentially using it to advertise his brand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
And all I have to do is look at its title "Wikipedia Takes Political Stance, Calls Taiwan a "Country"" if we called it anything it would be according to some "Taking a political Stance". This is a "please no one scenario". So we go with what the bulk of RS say. And wp:soap means this talk page if for discussing improvements to the article, not what some blokes view on the article is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: it's true that whichever side we go with is taking a side, but one major issue is that the opposing view is not even mentioned until the fourth paragraph. We could call it a country, but we should mention more prominently that this is not a universally accepted point of view. More prominently being in the first sentence, not the fourth paragraph.
And i think it is pretty obvious that @Davidbena: is pointing out that the relative weighting of points of view presented in the wiki page might be biased or inappropriately weighted. They were slightly indirect in the way they brought it up, but not unclear. Their point in showing the video is to show that people perceive this article as politically biased, and we should examine whether the article presents the topic appropriately for an encyclopedia.
By "country" is obviously meant a sovereign country, without being a bona fide part of Mainland China. We find other disputed places in our world and where Wikipedia's role in portraying these countries should be neutral. I think that this is what Nathan Rich is trying to tell us.Davidbena (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
No, the purpose is not merely to discuss the issues raised by Nathan Rich, for the sake of discussion without an outcome, but to see if the issues raised by him are applicable to this article. This is a legitimate inquiry. I think the question should be "how many countries recognize Mainland China's sovereignty over the break-away republic of Taiwan, and how many countries do not recognize Mainland China's sovereignty?” Let us not forget too that even the USA has signed three communiques with the People's Republic of China (Mainland China) stating to the effect that the USA agrees not to challenge the PRC's sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, but to respect China's "anti-secession law," until such time that Taiwan will be reunified with the Mainland. And although the Trump Administration has reneged on this promise, the communiques are still regarded as binding upon the parties.Davidbena (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Davidbena:"how many countries recognize Mainland China's sovereignty over the break-away republic of Taiwan, and how many countries do not recognize Mainland China's sovereignty?" As far as i understand it, it's somewhat complicated by both Taiwan and the mainland claiming sovereignty over both? Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean borders? None of that takes away from the fact that everything Davidbena said is factually incorrect, not least of which the “binding" communiques that apparently reference a law that won’t exist for decades (in case you didnt know binding communique is an oxymoron). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Davidbena: To be clear here, the United States did not recognize that Taiwan is part of the PRC in the Three Joint Communiques. They simply “acknowledged the Chinese position” without recognizing it as their own position. This fact was clarified in point number 5 of the Six Assurances issued to Taiwan on the same day the Third Joint Communique was signed- “The United States:… Has not altered its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan.”. Point 4 of the Six Assurances also states that the US “Has not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act”, which defines Taiwan as: ““Taiwan” includes, as the context may require, the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores, the people on those islands, corporations and other entities and associations created or organized under the laws applied on those islands, and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities (including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof).” Eclipsed830 (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's one stance from an official source. "Australian Government does not recognise the ROC as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government."[5]
But looking up nearly 200 countries might be crazy, so i shoupd find a list, which actually already exists right here Foreign relations of Taiwan.
That page "Foreign relations of Taiwan" is linked in this article, but not till the fourth paragraph, after three other quite long paragraphs. Most of the bias could be fixed by simply reordering the information that is already here, to order it according to relevance. Irtapil (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
^"Australia-Taiwan relationship". Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Australian Givernment. Retrieved 25 November 2020.
The thing to remember here is that we should NOT be supporting a double standard. In nearly all Wikipedia articles, where the majority of UN members recognise a country as being sovereign, it receives De jure recognition. In the case of Taiwan which has never declared its Independence, the majority of UN members (93%) do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state or country. This article should be amended to note this fact.Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Davidbena: I just mean the talk page section below #not consistent with other partially recognised states. I added examples of the intro sentence of every other partially recognised country i could find a Wikipedia article about, since multiple threads in this talk page are on the same topic.
Unfortunately i seem to lack the authority to do much with the article itself. I made a couple of attempts to reorder the information in the introduction, but it got reverted within minutes.
As i said in my first response to this thread, i'm honestly fairly confused by what they hope to achieve by burying the most noteworthy information, and presenting only one side of the story. Passionate supporters of the Kurdish people or Palestinians wouldn't try to hide the story about the nations that hold conflicting claims to their territory?
If you want something more balanced and informative than this eccentric Wiki article, i highly recommend several recent English language documentaries about Taiwan from the German public broadcaster DW, they're currently available on YouTube and not region locked, just search "DW Taiwan" (without the quotes). If English isn't your preferred language there's probably alternate versions of some them in German and even Arabic or other languages.
@Horse Eye's Back: not so much that one, no. I noticed that one and might watch it later, but it's not really what i would recommend as an introduction for someone who found the wiki article lacking.
The one i had in mind was "Taiwan: China's next target? | DW Analysis". It was a bit scary in the speculative bits, but the background in the intro clarified a lot of things which i had been confused about. For any other part of the world Wikipedia is normally a reliable 101, but i this case i just got even more confused by wiki, but DW made a lot more sense.
@Horse Eye's Back: eventually, it took me seven read-throughs to work out what you were getting at. I thought you were trying to convince me Taiwan are "the good guys" because they are nicer to Queer people.
If this wiki article on Taiwan went nine words without clarifying the disputed status, that would be fine, but this wiki article goes for four paragraphs before even mentioning it.
I said already that calling it a "country" is justifiable, as long as the ambiguity is clarified fairly prominently.
I might watch that one now actually, i expect they don't mention PRC without mentioning the dispute…
@Horse Eye's Back: "country" is mentioned once by a local being interviewed, the title seems to be a quote. The DW reporter doesn't mention it, he only says "Taiwan" without any added description of status.
No mention of PCR, let alone a description of it as a neighbouring country with equal status to Japan and the Philippines "Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south."
@Davidbena: The reason why it is called a Country is not because of a geopolitical consensus, but rather due to the Opinions and Statements of our sources. If you look at the original consensus page, you will see that the most potent information in the favor of Taiwan being referred to as a country is the overwhelming prevalence of Taiwan being referred to as a Country in media. Wikipedia, is essentially an aggregator of information. We take information from many sources and use overlapping agreement amongst those sources to find what seems to be fact. The opinions of one Youtuber, who after looking over the video and his channel as a whole, seems to have a dubious level of neutrality in regards to the Chinese Communist Party, is effectful to this article. Also, this article is about the country! Not it's Geopolitical status. The intro should be a synopsis about the Country of Taiwan. It should be simple, Taiwan is a country in southeast asia, not Taiwan is a de facto state which is claimed by the PRC, not recognised by most nations in the world, but is commonly referred to as a Country. We should address these facts, potentially in the opening, but not in the first sentence. JazzClam (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I hear you. Your counter arguments are good and reasonable. It will come down to the preponderance of sources (which, in a sense, counts for a consensus).Davidbena (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Nathan Rich's opinion does not matter
I've elaborated more on this point elsewhere. I believe that Nathan Rich is a state-sponsored propagandist. He also has an army of brigadiers, though I'm not sure whether they've been deployed here. In any case, he made this YouTube video about Taiwan's Wikipedia article purely in order to make money and rile up his fans. He is not an academic... He's a celebrity. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
QUOTE (from myself): That makes sense. I will say, I'm generally quite concerned about the fact that Nathan Rich's video was cited in this talk page (twice!!) without any background being provided about Nathan Rich's political motives and academic background. The statements that he made in his video were taken completely at face value by numerous Wikipedians in this talk page, and an absurd and furious debate was sparked and has been raging on for days. Again and again, I've questioned the entire foundation of this debate... Why are Wikipedians here refusing to question the veracity of the source? Several Wikipedians have claimed that "the source is irrelevant and is just a conversation starter". This argument is doubtful... Why should we permit a conversation to be started when the very basis of that conversation cannot be verified and when certain Wikipedians are actively trying to prevent other Wikipedians from even attempting to verify this basis? In my opinion, this entire situation is an attempt at gaslighting by malign actors. It is potentially even a brigade that is being sponsored by Nathan Rich himself. He has a history of doing that (he wrote his own Wikipedia article and tried to promote his business ventures there; however, he was eventually shut down by admins/moderators). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC) ... In the space of one week, 15,000 words have been exchanged throughout this debate. Even if Nathan Rich doesn't win this battle, he will still have gained for himself a significant platform that he certainly does not deserve in any capacity. This entire situation is a publicity stunt on the behalf of Nathan Rich. No matter what happens, he will still make big bucks in the end. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how any of these discussions about Nathan Rich (pro tip: I'm not the one who initially brought him up) are in any way contributing to the improvement of this article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Well its not an RS, as I said. At that point this should have been over. It cannot be used as a source, so whatever it says cannot be included. Thus this serves no valid purpose.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting enough to watch. Not a reliable source for sure, but it is reflective of the sort of language that can be found reliably published. Some immediate criticisms: He is very loose with the word "fact"; he is obsessive with one meaning of the word "country" when it has a range of meanings and none are precisely defined; and he does not understand what an encyclopedia is, in that it is a collection of knowledge as opposed to being being a collection of facts. On the last, Wikipedia covers what people think Taiwan is, not the ultra-metaphysical fact of what is Taiwan is. That said, much he says makes sense, and I have heard it all before, from Taiwan-polarised people, and he puts it moderately. On my second point about "country" and what language is used on other non-UN state articles, tongue in cheek I throw the Wikipedia jargon at him, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Consistency is good, but consistency is never the top argument. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) small edits SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Contents of his arguments aside, I found his video quite annoying in that his Chinese subtitles have a habit of calling the grass blue and the sky green, presumably to avoid offending his primary viewerbase. Whenever he mentions "country", the Chinese subtitles read "國家" (TL: nation-state, country, etc. depending on context), and whenever he mentions "state", the Chinese subtitles read "地區" (TL: area, region; c.f. Flanders/佛兰德地區, Holland/荷蘭地區). --benlisquareT•C•E03:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Something else that is important to point out
Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC. As it stands, for 71 years now, the Taiwanese have been ruled by an entirely separate government. The PRC has never been sovereign over Taiwan. The PRC has been threatening to invade and annex Taiwan "by force if necessary" ever since Chiang Kai-shek and his goons fled there in 1949. My question is... what do we view as being "neutral" on this topic? Does being "neutral" mean giving equal weight to both the defenders, the Taiwanese, who have lived on Taiwan for either decades or centuries and whose lives are daily endangered by a hostile foreign regime, and the attackers, the People's Republic of China, a regime that has never ruled Taiwan in history and yet threatens Taiwan with military annihilation on a regular basis? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Excellent points. I think that we can mention all these as facts, and that there is a dispute over whether Taiwan (a break-away republic) should be re-united with Mainland China, and whether or not Taiwan enjoys "sovereign" status, as the current government (the CCP) was not a viable government at the time when Taiwan was separated from the Mainland. It should also be pointed out that the majority of nations who are signatories to the UN charter do not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state.Davidbena (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The facts as they stand are that Taiwan's status is undecided ever since the San Francisco Treaty was signed in 1951. Taiwan was part of Japan from 1895 to 1945. In 1951, Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan in the aforementioned treaty but left Taiwan's future fate up for further arbitration. Taiwan's political status ever since then has remained officially unresolved. Taiwan was never even technically legally part of the Republic of China, let alone the People's Republic of China. EDIT: Theory of the Undetermined Status of TaiwanJargo Nautilus (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
From the standpoint of a modern political entity or government within Mainland China, you are right that Taiwan was never even technically legally part of the People's Republic of China. However, after the departure of the Japanese occupying power from Taiwan (as well as due to other regional conflicts), a political entity was also established on the island of Taiwan to fill the vacuum and to give some semblance of governance and which called itself "the Republic of China." The two systems of governance (the one in Mainland China and the other in Taiwan) do not take-away from their mutually shared heritage and ancestral ties.Davidbena (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The point that I was actually making is that Taiwan was never even technically legally part of the Republic of China (ROC) before the People's Republic of China (PRC) came into existence. The ROC was established in 1912; the 1912 constitution doesn't include Taiwan as territory of China. In 1945, the ROC defeated the Empire of Japan (EOJ) in the Second Sino-Japanese War, forcing the EOJ to withdraw from Taiwan and leave the territory in ROC hands. To be clear here, the EOJ didn't legally cede Taiwan to the ROC at this point (which is commonly referred to as "Retrocession Day"), but merely agreed to the ROC occupying Taiwan for a temporary period, pending further arbitration on the future status of Taiwan. The ROC unilaterally annexed Taiwan almost immediately after they gained control of Taiwan. However, major countries around the world, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, both of which were allies of the ROC during WWII, have condemned this decision of the ROC historically. Prior to 1949, when the PRC was established, very few if any countries recognised Taiwan as part of the ROC. The PRC claims to be the successor state of the ROC, meaning that it has the right to inherit all of the ROC's former territories. However, as I've pointed out here, Taiwan was never a historical territory of the ROC, at least in terms of core sovereignty. The PRC's current claim is based on the ROC's previous claim, which itself wasn't even recognised by the international community pre-1949. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Japan lost the Second Sino-Japanese War not because the ROC defeated Japan, but because the Allies worked together against Japan in the World War II and eventually the US finished the Japan with two atomic bombs. In fact, the battles of the Second Sino-Japanese War had nothing to do with Taiwan because Taiwan and China were in different theaters. Taiwan was in the Pacific Ocean theater while China was in the China Burma India Theater. And in the Pacific Ocean theater, the US did most of the assaults on Japan (included Taiwan). For this reason, some opinions hold that it was the US that freed Taiwan from Japan. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
This is true. However, the Second Sino-Japanese War is the war that was specifically fought between the ROC and EOJ, which is why I mentioned it. I also briefly mentioned WWII and the UK and US. Whether you view WWII as the "superior" war is a matter of opinion. My statement that the ROC won the Second Sino-Japanese War isn't false; it's true. However, just because the ROC won, that does not mean it had no support. The ROC was the primary force fighting the EOJ in mainland China whereas the US was the primary force fighting the EOJ in Taiwan, Okinawa and mainland Japan. It was the US that dealt the decisive blows against Japan in the end, though the ROC's contribution to the war was also significant. When the ROC defeated the EOJ in the Second Sino-Japanese War (with or without US assistance is irrelevant), it demanded that Japan hand over Taiwan as part of the spoils of war. This is the exact same thing the EOJ did back in the First Sino-Japanese War when it defeated the Qing Empire in a war that was mainly fought in Korea; upon winning the war, the EOJ demanded Taiwan as part of the spoils of war, although the war had not been fought on Taiwanese soil. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The ROC did not demand that Japan hand over Taiwan as part of the spoils of war when it defeated the Japan in the Second Sino-Japanese War. The ROC occupied Taiwan in 1945 because the Allies assigned the ROC this mission. And the Allies assigned the ROC this mission because they made a statement in the 1943 Cairo Declaration that Taiwan shall be restored to the ROC. It should be pointed out that, the US and the UK regard the said declaration as merely a war-time statement of intention and having no binding force of law, and that the Allies assigned the ROC the occupation of Taiwan for the purpose of waiting for a peace treaty to transfer Taiwan's sovereignty. That's why the US and the UK did not agree with the ROC's unilateral action of annexing Taiwan in 1945.
The ROC did demand this? In the Cairo Conference and Potsdam Declaration? I am pretty sure Chiang Kai-shek made his intentions clear. Ah, yeah, you've said it. There you go. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Although the two declarations were jointly issued by the Allies, I guess it can be loosely regarded that the ROC did demand this in the two declarations. After all, it was the ROC that brought up this demand during the Cairo Conference and asked the other two participants (the US and the UK) to add this demand into the declaration. The ROC claims that the Cairo Declaration is a legal document; the US and the UK disagree with that. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
As for the First Sino-Japanese War, from what I can see, at least 66% of the battles happened within Chinese territories or territorial waters. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the battles occurred in Manchuria and northern China, nearby to Korea. The war was mainly fought over influence in Korea and Manchuria. The war was partially fought in the Pescadores, though not very much in Taiwan proper. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Please be accurate of your wording. The international community regarded Taiwan as part of Japan from 1895 to 1945, so Japanese government in Taiwan should not be referred to as "occupying power". Interestingly, from the viewpoints of the US and the UK, the phrase "occupying power" fits well to the "Republic of China" because both stated that the ROC occupied Taiwan since 1945. The UK even made clear that the ROC occupied Taiwan as a post-war military occupation on behalf of the Allies of World War II and that the ROC's occupation of Taiwan did not involve a cession or any change of sovereignty. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Colonial powers are by definition occupiers, there is no debate that the Spanish, Dutch, Chinese, and Japanese were Taiwan’s colonial powers the only debatable question is whether the KMT was a colonizer/occupier. That last question is still unsettled, the rest aren't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
By the definition of international law, Japan was the lawful owner of the sovereignty of Taiwan and therefore it was not an occupier. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
By what definition of international law my dear Mr Smith? Please be as specific as you are able to be. Also one can not own sovereignty, they are mutually exclusive concepts, perhaps you meant a different word? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
And by what definition are colonial powers occupiers? Regarding sovereignty, I'm not sure how native English speakers describe the ownership of territorial sovereignty, but I meant that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan (island) belonged to Japan (1895-1945). EDIT: I striked through the years because there are opinions that the sovereignty of Taiwan was Japanese until 1952. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you mean to say that Taiwan was a constituent part of Japan. Japan didn't own the sovereignty of Taiwan... Taiwan was part of Japan, so, theoretically, Taiwan owned its own sovereignty, as a part of Japan. You wouldn't say that Japan owns the sovereignty of Tokyo, for example. As a constituent part of Japan, Tokyo has sovereignty over itself under the flag of Japan. Anyway, when Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan, that wasn't actually a concession that Japan had merely been occupying Taiwan... Japan still considers itself to have been sovereign over Taiwan from 1895 to 1952. A country can cede a territory whilst also simultaneously recognising that it was previously part of the country's sovereign territory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I was just about to modify my previous comment because I recalled that there are opinions that the sovereignty of Taiwan was Japanese until 1952, and you beat me to it. Anyway, you get the idea of what I'm trying to express regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan. Also, in Treaty of Shimonoseki, it is written that "China cedes to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty the following territories". --Matt Smith (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
not consistent with other partially recognised states
"Transnistria, Transdniestria, or Pridnestrovie, officially the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic[a] (PMR; Russian: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика, romanized: Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika), is a breakaway state in the narrow strip of land between the river Dniester and the Ukrainian border that is internationally recognized as part of Moldova."
^The name "Rojava" ("The West") was initially used by the region's PYD-led government, before its usage was dropped in 2016. Since then, the name is still used by locals and international observers.
Taiwan's situation is without parallel elsewhere, but I agree that there should be some mention of it in the first sentence. The above discussions seem to imply that de facto/de jure labels are unhelpful. If we are stuck with "country" for now, I suggest
Which of those has been a UN member at some point in the past, the ROC has. Taiwan is a unique case, but I would not be adverse to something like "challenged by the PRC".Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For what it's worth, countless RSes directly use the terminology de facto state, de facto sovereign state, or de facto country when describing ROC/Taiwan. Here is a small sample that I compiled in an older comment (Talk:Taiwan/Archive 30):
Clough, Ralph N. "The Status of Taiwan in the New International Legal Order in the Western Pacific." Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), vol. 87, 1993, pp. 73–77. JSTOR, Link.
Barry, Bartmann. "Between De Jure and De Facto Statehood: Revisiting the Status of Taiwan." Island Studies Journal, vol 3(1), 2008. Link.
Carolan, Christopher J. "The 'Republic of Taiwan': A Legal-Historical Justification for a Taiwanese Declaration of Independence." New York University Law Review, vol 75(2), 2000. Link.
Ediger, Mikaela L. "International Law and the Use of Force Against Contested States: The Case of Taiwan." New York University Law Review, vol 93(6), 2018. Link.
Otopalik, Cameron M. "Taiwan's Quest for Independence: Progress on the Margins for Recognition of Statehood" Asian Journal of Political Science, vol 14, 2006. Link.
Cho, Young Chul and Ahn, Mun Suk. "Taiwan’s international visibility in the twenty-first century: A suggestive note." Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis, vol 72(1), 2017. Link.
The way that it is currently written is slightly not WP:NPOV. I think his suggestion seems to be fair. Perhaps we should start an RfC on its use? Félix An (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Lead sentence
"Taiwan is a country" seems to be breaking from tradition in Wikipedia when talking about disputed territories. Virtually every other contested state mentions the dispute in the lead sentence but for some reason this is absence in this article.
Examples:
"South Ossetia is a de facto state in the South Caucasus recognised by most countries as part of Georgia."
"Abkhazia is a de facto state in the South Caucasus recognised by most countries as part of Georgia, which views the region as an autonomous republic"
"Kosovo is a partially-recognised state and disputed territory in Southeastern Europe."
"The Turkish Republic of Cyprus is a de facto state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community to be part of the Republic of Cyprus."
I could go on but I think you get the point I am trying to make. Taiwan, in contrast to virtually every other de facto existing state does not mention this in its lead sentence (and refers to it as a "country" instead of a "state"), instead only mentioning it after three dense paragraphs in the lead. Shouldn't the article be brought into synchrony with the rest of wikipedia? PailSimon (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
There are two other possibilities. 1) the possibility that the Taiwan situation is different enough from those others to justify a different presentation and 2) the possibility that the other articles should be rewritten more like the Taiwan article. --Khajidha (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned within the sections above, there is nowhere within Wikipedia policy that dictates that Wikipedia content must follow precedent. Thus, any argument to change the phrasing in the lead paragraph should be done so on its own individual merits, regardless of the lead paragraphs of other articles. We're seemingly having the same discussions over and over again, please CTRL+F the talk page before creating yet another new thread. --benlisquareT•C•E13:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I watched the YouTube video. I see these entities. It doesn’t matter what these articles say. They’re completely irrelevant. Look at the populations and GDP and military of these entities. You just can’t compare them to Taiwan, its like a 2-4 order of magnitude difference. Stephen Balaban21:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
why do people want to present a one sided story?
@Horse Eye's Back, Kanguole, Slatersteven, Matt Smith, Davidbena, Jargo Nautilus, In wkpd, Eclipsed830, and In wkpd: Can a anyone help me understand the other editors' motivations in this dispute? There's a justification for keeping harmful information off Wikipedia, for example i would expect a lot of the chemistry articles omit information that might be illegal or dangerous? but i don't understand how presenting Mainland China's side of the story is harmful? China's stance seems to present a serous that to Taiwan, but ignoring that issue seems like it would be counter productive? I don't see how leaving out this information - or burying this information under other details - helps anyone? It just leaves readers with an incomplete impression of the situation. Irtapil (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
We do not need to have the same discussion in 3 or 4 separate threads. We have made out cases in threads above, please red those and respond there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Irtapil All of my edits have been based on facts, not opinions or "sides". I have not taken a position on the country vs. state matter, but I personally think the term "country" is appropriate within the context of the article. While I understand that the PRC claims Taiwan as part of its territory, the fact is the PRC has never had any sort of authority, power or jurisdiction over the island of Formosa/Taiwan, its people, its government, its laws, etc. I also do not think it's appropriate to have these same discussions over and over again, as at this point they are repeating the same stuff that has already been discussed. It would be much better to focus on improving other aspects of the article, instead of focusing on one or two minor edits/details/words. Eclipsed830 (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Note that the premise of this question is false, as there is an extensive section in the article on "Political and legal status" where the PRC's "side of the story" is well represented. Zoozaz1talk14:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Zoozaz1: Yes, i found that article, but i am talking a about this one. But since you mention it, why is that article not linked when PRC is first mentioned in this one? This article starts with "Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest" and doesn't mention the complexity of the relationship till after three paragraphs of other details. If it took the paragraphs to mention PRC at all that would be a bit odd, but not misleading. But mentioning PRC in "neighbouring countries" without describing the relationship then and there seems like a very deliberate omission. Irtapil (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Irtapil, Yes, in this article there is a section on political and legal status where the PRC's side of the story is represented. And the reason you seem to take issue with the lead is only because there is a limited amount of space. We cannot detail the complexities and nuances of the political and legal status in a sentence; if you want to discover those complexities, you should read the section above and the political status of Taiwan article in its entirety and, if you take issue with specific points, discuss them. Of course the first sentence doesn't detail the complex political relationship, because in an article about Taiwan there are more important things than some incredibly complex international legal controversy, which couldn't fit into a sentence without someone objecting to it. Zoozaz1talk15:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Zoozaz1 I actually already mentioned this information days ago and it went over everyone's heads. So many people here are just trying to strongarm some kind of agenda without listening to the facts. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
It gets a whole paragraph in the lead, in what way are we presenting just one side of the story? TBH we currently seem to give it undue weight in the lead, we don’t even mention that Taiwan has cornered the global market for computer chips and has surpassed even the United States in microchip technology (the most important aspect of the country from an objective point of view) yet we have a whole paragraph about something that is immaterial to almost everyone involved. I would cut the feud with China down to two sentences at most. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The fundamental problem here is that people are conflating the question of "is Taiwan a country?" with the distinct albeit related question "is Taiwan part of China?". Just because Taiwan isn't a country (as I've explained in the thread of comments that I pinged, Taiwan actually isn't a country), that doesn't automatically mean that Taiwan is part of China. In fact, Taiwan is simultaneously not a country and not part of China. - Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Bear in mind that Taiwan actually is independent... It's just not a country. It's a de facto state, proto-state, whichever you prefer (I prefer the latter). It just isn't a full-fledged country. Taiwan is on its way to becoming a country. It's an emerging country, in the most basic sense. There's literally a political party in Taiwan that occupies one of the seats on the Legislative Council called the "Taiwan Statebuilding Party". Clearly, the term "statebuilding" implies that the state is still currently in the process of being built. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There actually isn't a huge issue with describing Taiwan as a de facto state or proto-state in the lede. The main problem with doing so is that there's too much weight simultaneously being placed on the PRC's territorial claim to Taiwan. The PRC's claim is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Taiwan is a sovereign state versus a proto-state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I do agree with the notion that Taiwan isn't a country, since this is factually correct. Taiwan has never formally declared independence. At the moment, the Taiwanese independence movement has instead chosen to hijack the Republic of China's political infrastructure and subvert the pre-existing ROC rump state from within, rather than challenge the rump state's legitimacy through violent means. The Democratic Progressive Party is a Taiwanese nationalist party but it rules over Taiwan within the framework of the pre-existing ROC rump state infrastructure. The Taiwan independence movement's "queen leader", Tsai Ing-wen, is actually legally the president of the Republic of China, not the president of Taiwan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
However, many of the Wikipedians here who are pushing the notion that Taiwan isn't a country are doing so in bad faith... They are not just saying "Taiwan isn't a country", which, again, is something that I actually agree with. Instead, what they are saying is "Taiwan is not a country because it belongs to China", which seemingly sounds the same but is actually completely different.Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
In truth, Taiwan is not a country because, if it were to formally declare independence and rewrite the Kuomintang/ROC constitution that Taiwan currently uses, this would prompt a military invasion or missile barrage from China. Taiwan has all the cards in place to become a country. At the present time, it actually functions more-or-less as a country, albeit a really weird one that officially carries the title of a foreign country. Taiwan's situation is quite similar to Western Sahara, as I've pointed out in the thread that I pinged. Taiwan isn't part of China, though the fact that China actively lays claim to Taiwan is enough to scare the Taiwanese into not declaring independence, at least not just yet. However, the fact that Taiwan hasn't declared independence doesn't automatically mean it's part of China. It's actually a non-self-governing territory that isn't part of any country at the moment, although it is (nominally) occupied by the ROC rump state in Taiwan (bear in mind that the ROC is basically already dead in all but name, ever since the DPP usurped the state for the second time back in 2016) and is claimed by the PRC sovereign state over in mainland China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
An appropriate summary of Taiwan's situation would be the following: "Taiwan is a non-self-governing territory that is controlled by an indigenous proto-state. The territory was formerly a rump state of the Republic of China, a former Chinese regime that ruled mainland China (1912–1949) but fled the country in exile after losing the Chinese Civil War, choosing to instead relocate to Taiwan. Taiwan is still officially known as the "Republic of China", although its political system and the balance of power in the country (between ethnic groups and political factions) have both changed dramatically in recent decades. At the same time, the government of mainland China, the People's Republic of China (1949–present), maintains a territorial claim to Taiwan, on the basis that Taiwan was historically part of China. The claim that Taiwan was historically part of China is disputed, with many in Taiwan seeing the previous periods of Chinese rule as instances of temporary occupation rather than legitimate Chinese sovereignty."Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
We don't need to talk about the motivation. My plan is to look into the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, and see if we can find a version backupped by the policies/guidelines. It's all about understanding what Wikipedia is. So I suggest you read Five pillars if you feel confused. Dig into those principles, and you'll know what's right. If you still find this Page needs to be fixed after that, you will come back with stronger arguments.--In wkpd (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I've migrated the new section you opened over to my own user talk page. As far as I can tell, the topics you were discussing were irrelevant to improving this article. Stay on topic, please. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Both the PRC and ROC agree that China is a country consisting of the mainland and Taiwan and so does every other country in the world. The only dispute is over who is the legitimate government - the PRC which currently controls the mainland or the ROC which currently controls Taiwan. There is a fringe view that Taiwan was never part of China and therefore has a right to self-determination which unfortunately is the view pushed by this article. TFD (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
You mean to tell me that the current "Republic of China", ruled by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) under the presidency of Tsai Ing-wen, claims mainland China as part of its territory? Tsai Ing-wen is the current "queen leader" of the Taiwan independence movement... she isn't necessarily a hardline independence supporter, but she certainly leans heavily in that direction. Actually, her vice-president William Lai Ching-te, spokeswoman Kolas Yotaka and foreign minister Joseph Wu seem to be much more pro-independence than she is, at least in terms of their public personas. But anyway... Taiwan can really only be said to "claim mainland China" whenever it is under the leadership of the Kuomintang (KMT), and even then, the KMT has softened their stance over the past few decades, ever since it became apparent that they were (1) being overtaken by the People's Republic of China in terms of economy and military and (2) losing popular support in Taiwan to the DPP. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The claim that the ROC deliberately claims the entirety of China is an intentionally spread falsehood oft-repeated time and time again in these discussions. The ROC has not made any official statement regarding territorial changes, because anything that could be remotely interpreted as secession can result in 5,800 missiles being launched from the Fujian coast. Taiwanese politicians are not stupid, and won't risk the lives of Taiwanese citizens just to score some brownie points. The current status quo of deliberate ambiguity serves a practical purpose and provides harm-minimalisation. In reality, if you look how actual ROC laws have changed since 2002, the ROC essentially treats itself as a separate sovereign state to Mongolia, Tannu Tuva, and mainland China. If you disagree, then name me one ROC law that grants Mongolian, Russian or PRC citizens special legal status within ROC jurisdiction within the realms of taxation, police detainment, corrections, real estate ownership, or any other facet of ROC society. --benlisquareT•C•E22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan and Republic of China are two things
Taiwan is a geographic term, describing an island. Republic of China is a de facto, partially recognized state, not a country, which governs not only Taiwan and a few other islands. Deliberately mixing the two up is shameful, making Wikipedia spreading false information that "Taiwan is a country", despite it isn't. Even Republic of China has a province called "Taiwan Province", no joke, even though it's pointless. Taiwan was not, is not, and most probably would not be a country. Stop spreading false information. Same for other language versions.--owennson (Meeting Room、Certificates) 07:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree. You and I live in a Chinese-speaking environment and clearly know the consequence of mixing the two. Unfortunately, English-speaking editors appear to care very little about the consequence. This topic has been brought up many times, and this won't be the last time. But I doubt English-speaking editors would change their minds. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, when you spout such gibberish as "partially recognized state, not a country" it's pretty dang hard to take anything you say seriously. ANY sovereign state (whether partially or universally recognized} is a country. --Khajidha (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
While in general on Wikipedia we avoid belittling editors for a lack of erudition or education (that is perhaps the greatest philosophical difference between Wales and Sanger after all) I find myself agreeing with Khajidha. It seems that on both sides of this issue the editors making the most noise and making the most definitive statements know the least about the issue at hand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The term country is however ambiguous. One could say for example that the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are both countries. But then Northern Ireland is considered a country within the UK & NI, while Ireland as a whole is also considered to be a country that has been partitioned. China is a country that is administered by the PRP on the mainland and the ROC in Taiwan. TFD (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Matt Smith, how is it strongly POV when it is the official position of the PRC, the ROC, the UN and every country that recognizes either of the two Chinas? Notice that both states include "of China" in their names. TFD (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
As has been explained to you a half dozen times now thats not true, please stop spreading disinformation (you know its false at this point, there is no excuse). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The Taiwan independence movement also thinks The Four Deuces's argument is full of holes which have already been pointed out to them? I find that unlikely but its not the most unbelievable thing you’ve written in the last hour. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Because they wished to conquer italy and restart the Roman Empire as a successor state? not to mention it being called the Holy Roman Empire officially is disputed by historians today while theres no possible way anyone could dispute the name Republic of China. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Are you saying they didn't adopt the name Holy Roman Empire specifically to lay claim to italy or are you saying the Holy Roman Empire was founded by Charlemagne when he was crowned Emperor of the Romans because usually thats called the Carolingian Empire named after the ruling Dynasty. also, Voltaire's histiography is considered pretty outdated now so I wouldn't take his word as gold. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
They called themselves the Holy Roman Empire because, per the Wikipedia article, "the Emperor's legitimacy always rested on the concept of translatio imperii, that he held supreme power inherited from the ancient emperors of Rome." TFD (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
"Why do they call themselves the Republic of China (Taiwan) if they are not actually in China?" 1) Inertia, 2) Lingering dreams of restoring control over China, 3) fear of Chinese aggression --Khajidha (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@TFD: The PRC and the ROC can hold whatever positions they like, but that does not mean their positions conform to international law. Please don't forget that the position of the US regarding this issue is that the status of Taiwan is unsettled. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
What is unsettled is its relationship with the PRC, not that it is not Chinese. I am sure they and many other countries would prefer that both the PRC and ROC change their constitutions so that they nor longer claim each other's territory, just as the Federal Republic of Germany gave up its claim to East Germany and Western Poland, and the Republic of Ireland gave up its claim to Northern Ireland. TFD (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
No. What is unsettled is the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan (island). The US does not recognize the PRC and the ROC's claims that Taiwan is part of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
No, they don't recognize that Taiwan is part of the PRC, just as the UK does not recognize that Northern Ireland is part of the Republic of Ireland. Just because someone sees China, Ireland, Germany, Korea or Vietnam as countries does not mean they want to see them united under one or the other government. TFD (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Please cite a governmental or government-related source of the US to prove that the US recognizes Taiwan as part of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree aswell. the conflation of the two and the way the article as presently written only seems to serve to further the taiwan independence movement within the Republic of China which wikipedia shouldn't be trying to support. seems as crazy to me as putting Britain or America as the primary names of each respective countries in their respective articles because people commonly call them as such. the official name is Republic of China and should remain as such until legally changed. and legal change seems unlikely as neither main political party there has made any policy towards declaration of independence. Presidents have over the years repeatedly upheld the claims on the rest of China [35] as well as in the 2018 referendum citizens rejecting the name Taiwan for the upcoming olympics [36]. I'm of the opinion that this is probably all directed by zealous anti-PRC folk who want to oppose that government by distorting facts as much as possible. if so, they should recuse themselves and let a non-charged consensus that doesn't confuse readers or make large conflations on pretty weak logic. Wikipedia should be for the truth not personal crusades Thehighwayman5 (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan is the colloquial name for the Republic of China. The best geographic term that describes the main island of Taiwan would probably be Formosa, as "Taiwan" (as you mentioned because of the old Taiwan Province) historically within context of the ROC included Penghu and the other Pescadores Islands too. Modern day the government uses "Taiwan" to describe all areas under its control, and not specifically just the main island. For example, Penghu Airport has a large sign that says "Welcome to TAIWAN!" and the official address for Lienchiang County (Matsu) is listed as "No.76, Jieshou Village, Nangan Township, Lienchiang County 209, Taiwan (R.O.C.) (at the bottom)". Eclipsed830 (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Formosa is as common as its usually seen as a historic and eurocentric name. I believe Taiwan is used both for the main island and also for the archipelago itself (alongside it being a generic name for the ROC). If Formosa is the best geographic term I think someone should go and change the Formosan republic article because it uses the term Island of Taiwan. I don't think its incredibly weird for the island of Matsu to be refered to as Taiwan considering with other countries such as the United Kingdom they have terms like BREXIT (British Exit) used but nobody thinks that its just the island of Britain or the British isles, as being geographic locations leaving the EU but the whole country of the United Kingdom. even the term British itself could be considered confusing since it refers not to people born in Britain or the British isles but those born of a nationality called british which includes the sub-nationalities English and Scottish and Welsh but disincludes Irish despite being part of the Isles. Obvious parallels exist considering the PRC-ROC relationship and the recent Taiwanese nationalist movement which wants to create a new nationality Taiwanese Thehighwayman5 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I don’t really consider Formosa to be “eurocentric” anymore. Typically its used by Taiwanese in English translations of poetry and music to indicate the nature, biological and physical geographical features of the main island itself. It is also commonly used by Taiwanese scientist in the English translations of endemic species such as the Formosan black bear, Formosan serow, Formosan macaque, etc. Lastly, 3 of the largest 50 (TWSE) companies in Taiwan use Formosa instead of Taiwan in their English names, such as Formosa Plastics, Formosa Oil and Formosa Chem & Fibre. Eclipsed830 (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
that fair but I've personally never heard it used as such and view it in the same vein as the term Sino, a term which used to be the common, slightly westernized description but gradually over time got superceded by a different term. I mean the word Formosa comes from portuguese a language not used on the island versus Taiwan which comes from one of the native languages so on the face of it its atleast etymologically western. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Thehighwayman5 "Taiwan" actually comes from the Dutch, as they couldn't figure out how to spell Tayouan lol: "As early as 1636, a Dutch missionary referred to this group as Taiouwang. From the name of the tribe, the Portuguese called the area around Ping'an as Tayowan, Taiyowan, Tyovon, Teijoan, Toyouan, and so forth. Indeed, already in his ship's log of 1622, the Dutchman Cornelis Reijersen referred to the area as Teijoan and Taiyowan." Eclipsed830 (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting but you know what I mean, its a Dutch or Portguese way of pronouncing the native word not a native portuguese word applied to the area. I'm aware of how hard it can be to translate names into other languages because I speak Japanese and Japanese Romanizations annoy the hell out of me. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting... In the modern era pretty much the only people I see using Formosa are Taiwanese. Just FYI the name “China” is Eurocentric, its a foreign term which was imported by the nascent nationalists at the end of the 19th century and retroactively applied to a number of dynasties and states which had never seen themselves as part of the same political or historical tradition. The idea of China isn't ancient, its a modern nationalist conception like the rest of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
well of course the nation of China was invented recently as the entire idea of nations is a western concept imported to fit local conditions but thats hardly relevent. one could make the argument since Marxist Communism and Liberalism we're imported from europe the governments in these countries are foreign and eurocentric. with regards to your assertion the dynasties weren't part of the same political or historical tradition is quite ludicrous. the different dynasties adopted the bureacratic institutions and infrastructure that pre-existed themselves such that there was a very clear and deliberate movement from Yuan dynasty to Ming dynasty to Qing dynasty etc. governance. Each emperor or king or whatever title depending on the dynasty deliberately adopted the "Mandate of heaven" or other politico-cultural aspects like inherited monarchy (the Manchus traditionally elected their monarchy from a group of nobles similar to medieval poland but abandoned this in order to inherit the Chinese empire) in order to connect themselves to system. The idea of dynasties does not mean underlying state apparatuses don't exist (the Hasburg dynasty didn't erase the concept of Austria or Spain or cause those states to stop existing upon their fall from power) nor does the idea that a country pre-exist nationalism means that there isn't a self identification or tradition (the Roman empire predates nationalism by thousands of years but people considered themselves romans all throughout its time such that even in greece in the early 19th century there we're islands with people who called themselves romans). China did not come into existence in 1912 out of nowhere. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
That would violate WP:COMMONNAME, literally nobody calls Taiwan "Taiwan (Republic of China).” There is only one common name, not even Republic of China is commonly used anymore as demonstrated by this google trends readout [37]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
But people might just be referring to the island and not the disputed political entity. People often say "Taiwan" to simply refer to the geographical location. Félix An (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
That makes about as much sense as thinking someone who says "I'm going to Japan" means the islands and not the political entity. --Khajidha (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It is normally used to refer to either the ROC or the territory it governs. The term China refers either to China (including mainland and Taiwan, sometimes called the two Chinas) or the PRC or the territory it governs. Taiwan can also refer to the island or islands, the PRC province or the ROC territory. But none of that means that there is a de jure sovereign state called Taiwan. TFD (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that you desist from asserting that China includes mainland and Taiwan, which is a strong POV. And it is objectionable as well to assert that Taiwan is the ROC's territory. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
But the ROC currently governs there. its Either the PRC's or the ROCs since no other countries claim it. and both countries consider themselves china hence the names Republic of China and People's Republic of China — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehighwayman5 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
a polity governing an area is the definition of De facto Sovereignty and thus qualifies as a kind of sovereignty. there can be multiple De jure sovereignties; one De jure sovereignty gives Taiwan to the PRC while one gives it to the ROC. its an uncontroversial statement to say China has sovereignty over Taiwan Thehighwayman5 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The use of "de facto" already tells everyone that the polity does not actually have sovereignty (over the area) and is just exercising jurisdiction (over the area). And some scholars do not use "de jure" like that so your notion of "de jure sovereignty" is debatable. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
thats not what the words/phrases de facto, sovereignty, and jurisdiction, and de jure mean in an academic sense when talking about states and international law. I don't really want to get into an argument explaining terms so I suggest you read the associated wikipedia articles, their citations, and possibly textbooks if you're interested in the enlightenment era development of the concept of sovereignty and the reason's for its development in light of the centralization of states and diminishing of noble's traditional power at that time. take care Thehighwayman5 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@Owennson: Wikipedia generally refers with both geographical definition and ROC (since ROC is only governing Taiwan and a few islands). And per WP:COMMONNAME, we generally refer to it as "Taiwan", and this usage is still valid on other articles like this.Ahmetlii (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment this is getting pretty far afield for a Wikipedia talk page where someone wants to add or change things. This conversation is more like a blog conversation which a Wikipedia talk page is not. Please finish this up or make a specific proposal that can be decided on by Wikipedia editors. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
There is clearly no consensus on the question of whether Taiwan is a country or not
Why do people claim there has been a consensus reached? There are plenty of people who disagree.
The dispute also was never whether "Taiwan is a country or state". The question is whether Taiwan is a county of Fujian province as claimed by the PRC (which is a claim recognized by the UN and supported by the vast majority of UN member states) or whether it is a sovereign country. It's impressive how anti-Chinese propagandists are so organized in spinning narratives on Wikipedia two twist reality in their favour. Is there a whole CIA brigade cooperating with Taiwanese editors or something? This was never a hot topic until very recently, nobody in their right minds would ever question PRC sovereign claims over Taiwan but under Trump it became one of American propagandists' favourite topic to play with.
There clearly is no community consensus. There might be a perceived tyrannical majority due to the population bias of the English language Wikipedia community, however, I would dispute even that.
The arguments in favour of Taiwan being a country are flimsy and I have yet to see a good one.
The arguments against Taiwan being a coutnry are overwhelming and have not been addressed.
For example: Nathan Rich has outlined his arguments quite clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKf9LWA4Wo
Yet opposing Wikipedia editors' main argument against all the clear arguments made by Rich was: "I believe Nathan Rich is paid by the Chinese government"
It must be clearly stated in the article that this is an ongoing academic dispute. It must also be stated that no other region on the planet that is similar to Taiwan (neither today nor in history) was ever called a country. It must also be clearly stated that the vast majority of country on earth does not recognize Taiwan as a country. It must also be clearly explained that there is a concerted propaganda effort by Taiwan and its allies to spread this narrative. This is literally a dispute between a Western anti-Chines propaganda narrative and official Chinese claims which are supported by the UN. As such, there MUST NOT be a "consensus" on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
First of all, there is already a section on this page discussing this topic, so I don't know why you are creating yet another one. Second, your conspiratorial tone about the intentions of editors holding different views only serves to discredit you, since you obviously have a political agenda to push, and are not in the least bit motivated by the need to keep the article neutral and academic. Third, using a Nathan Rich video as a source IS indeed questionable, just as using a blatant anti-China channel such as China Uncensored also isn't appropriate. I get that not every source is going to unbiased on Wikipedia, but we should strive to maintain minimum standards to at least seek out reputable and trustworthy sources. Fourth, the point about the UN is not as solid as you think it is, as the UN itself is a political organization and not the sole arbiter of what gets to be considered a country, because it that's the case, the article for the PRC should state that it only achieved its status as a country in 1971, when it was admitted to the UN. Lastly, this question has been settled by consensus already. Address the concerns that led to this consensus decision, otherwise you're just wasting your time. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
First of all, this section of the article relies directly on the premise of there being consensus. There absolutely isn't any consensus on this topic. As there is no consensus, any argument based on the claim that there is consensus is automatically invalid. Second, your personal attacks aren't an argument. My tone doesn't discredit me. Third, there is nothing questionable about using a Nathan Rich video and is, in fact, more credible than using any capitalist media outlet or any government with leading positions participating in Western government organizations. People are regularly citing sources such as the BBC, New York Times and other Western government/capitalist sources, which should clearly not be considered reliable, unbiased or in any other way credible when it comes questions related to socialism or any topic concerning a country outside of Five Eyes. Blindly dismissing a video by Nathan Rich as a source isn't an argument and doesn't address the content of the source. What isn't reputable or trustworthy about Nathan Rich and his well-researched documentation? Fourth, if the UN isn't a reliable source on this, nothing is, which only serves as support for my argument that there is no consensus. Feel free to add your comment about the PRC to the PRC article, it is totally irrelevant to this article. Lastly, this question is clearly not settled as there are clearly lots of people who disagree. What arguments in favour of this decisions haven't been sufficiently addressed, yet? I agree with you that there is no need to repeat what has already been documented. Therefore, please address the arguments made by Nathan Rich, which haven't yet been addressed on this talk page, yet. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Nathan Rich's opinion matters just as much as anyone else's and Nathan Rich has fully supported his position with facts and citations, including from Wikipedia
Jargo Nautilus Jargo Nautilus (talk) has provided nothing but personal attacks and bad faith arguments (just like most people who wants to call Taiwan a country, by the way) to support his position that Nathan Rich should be disregarded. Neither is there any evidence whatsoever that Nathan Rich is a state-sponsored propagandist, nor would that invalidate anything he said. Here is an easy way to counter this argument: "I believe Jargo Nautilus is a state-sponsored propagandist of the US capitalist, war criminal regime."
There you go. The conversation about this topic has now been concluded.
Meanwhile, the arguments of Nathan Rich are very clear and very convincing and trump anything I have seen peopel say in favour of Taiwan being a country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKf9LWA4Wo
I will revert this misleading manipulation of Wikipedia to push sinophobic political narratives and remove all examples of the claim that "Taiwan is a country" other than that it's an ongoing debate. Taiwan, objectively, is not a country and all attempts to spin this narrative by claiming it as a fact on this article should be considered vandalism and I will report it as such.
AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Why do you believe an RFC concludes the dispute? There clearly is an ongoing dispute. I am disputing it, after all, so are a few hundred million Chinese people. As I have not yet seen any credible argument supporting the claim that Taiwan is a country, that hasn't been reasonably disputed, there still is a dispute and I going to keep disputing it until there is a conclusive, academic answer that is no longer reasonably disputed. Where's the documentation of that RFC? I cannot find it anywhere. Where is the documentation, so I can reopen the debate and dispute any claims made and verify the provided evidence? The RfC in question openly admits that it was decided by a counting of personal opinions of less than 40 editors. There is zero academic merit to this. As Wikipedia is an educational resource and has political significance, this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. Reality mustn't be up for a vote. There most be clear academic sources to support the view without reasonable opposition existing to the country to make a definite claim. As there is dispute, there is dispute. Don't know why there is dispute about that. AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
First of all, the RfC in question is linked here. Even though your behavior is borderline uncivil, and you are ignoring the other discussions on this talk page, I will try to respond to your "arguments".
There clearly is an ongoing dispute.. You are correct. This matter is indeed highly contentious. However, when there is dispute, there needs to be discussion, and the RfC from May 2020 is exactly that. However, you are incorrect on that consensus is based on counting the number of opinions alone; the strength of argument is taken into account. User:Hobit's closing notice on the RfC sums it up nicely: "As far as strength of arguments go, the arguments were extremely varied and challenging to weigh. The basic arguments come down to "what is commonly used" and "what is the most accurate". We have agreement that most nations don't recognize Taiwan as an independent country, and people pointing that out tended to use that as an argument for "state". While there is some dispute, it seems that most of the media refers to Taiwan as a country and not a state, e.g. [1] and we have no real dispute about if Taiwan is de facto a country (has an army, currency, navy, passport, internet TLD, telephone country code, etc.) There were also concerns about what is most clear to our readers. People raising that issue generally felt country would be more clear to the US audience. Taking all of that into account, I don't see the strength of argument in favor of "state" being strong enough to overcome the numeric consensus (in fact I'd say country has a stronger argument). If you think that this consensus would change now, you are free to discuss or open another RfC. Just don't expect people to value your opinion more than others.
I have not yet seen any credible argument supporting the claim that Taiwan is a country There are plenty of arguments here on this talk page and its 32 archives. If you can't even see them, you are unwilling to even consider an argument that is not your own.
People are regularly citing sources such as the BBC, New York Times and other Western government/capitalist sources, which should clearly not be considered reliable This statement alone makes me question the validity of your arguments. With it, you are advocating that state-sponsored propaganda of a country, which actively suppresses the freedom of the press, should be given precedence to independent news organizations. This sentiment goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.
Reality mustn't be up for a vote. Yes, it must not be. It is ironic that you mention this. Your "source", the Nathan Rich video, mentions that "there's only one government of China". Which obviously is not reality, as China exerts no governmental power in Taiwan. So Mr. Rich is either arguing not Taiwan is not part of China (which he is not), or he is disproving his own argument.
I could go on, but to be honest, we are arguing against a wall here. Nothing we say will change your mind, and with statements like that, nothing you say will be productive to the discussion here. intforce (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
As you've said, based on their behaviour I'm certain nothing said will ever progress the flow of the discussion, after all they're clearly not actually here to build an encyclopedia, so my recommendation would be to move on, there's probably more productive things actually worth doing instead. Continuing to engage is not only futile, but also a waste of your time and everyone else's time; per WP:Wikipedia is not about winning, "winning" here makes zero difference. If they're confident enough to change Wikipedia consensus, they would have formally initiated a new WP:RFC already, but they haven't. Just like everyone else on this talk page, I'm still waiting on my CIA payment cheque to come in the mail (they sure are taking an unusually long time, I'm guessing it's due to the recent unrest in DC), so if you're also waiting on your late CIA payment, why not take a break instead. --benlisquareT•C•E01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Just pointing out the user AmericanPropagandaHunter has made zero contributions to Wikipedia as of this writing other than posting on talk pages. DrIdiot (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I do want to point out that there are many Western WP:RS media outlets that mention that the state of Taiwan is disputed. Not all media outlets assert that Taiwan is a country. Obviously, using Chinese state media such as CCTV would not be a reliable source in this case, because of the obvious conflict of interest. Félix An (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021
This edit request to Taiwan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
_and_Ma_Kong_(DDG-1805)_shipped_in_Zhongzheng_Naval_Base_20130504b.jpg)
.jpg)
Partly done: Changed to the neutral possessive "their" instead so that going back and forth each time a President of a gender is elected is not necessary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_passport#/media/File:Republic_of_China_Passport_Data_Page.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan#/media/File:Taiwan_ROC_Passport.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan#/media/File:ARC_Republic_of_China_(Taiwan).jpg){kind=link}
